Re: Unidentified subject!

[Lionel Elie Mamane]

On Sat, Jan 28, 2006 at 04:21:02PM +0100, Luca Brivio wrote:

> What do you think about the following License? Is it a free software
> license?

The patent grant is tighter than I'd like; the way I understand it,
you get a copyright license for modified works, but not a patent
grant. So if there is any patent (held by the "Initial Developer" or a
"Contributor") that covers the code, it makes it non-free, as then
modification is not permitted.

> https://biospice.org/visitor/documents/BioCOMPLicense.pdf

-- 
Lionel


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Unidentified subject!

[Luca Brivio]

What do you think about the following License? Is it a free software
license?

https://biospice.org/visitor/documents/BioCOMPLicense.pdf

(sorry for the document format).

Note that in order to download Bio-SPICE from its website it's
necessary to register oneself.

-- 
Luca Brivio

Web:?
Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
ICQ:234046116
MSN IM: [EMAIL PROTECTED]


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Unidentified subject!

[欢迎您登陆中关村二手网]

你好 

   我是中关村二手网   http://www.pc26.com   

   希望大家到我们的网站去看看，免费注册会员，然后再免费把你的产品信息发布上来，让我们广大的会员能看到你的信息，方便和你联系！ 
   
   另外我们的网站免费注册会员的期限就要到了，如果你还没有免费注册，请尽快登陆注册。机会不容错过！千万的商机在向你招手！ 

   我们的网站有很多的求购信息！希望你能联系以下，帮你找到商机！ 
 
   网络店铺，帮助您生意更加兴隆。

   如果这封邮件打扰到您！请您给予谅解，删除即可。

   有什么问题和我们联系我的电话010-82853069-802   斯琴 

   E-mail:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

  MSN:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

  Q Q:31530937
 

   祝商祺！ 



中关村二手网  推广部 
北京金桥利康科技有限责任公司


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Unidentified subject!

[合作]

尊敬的财务负责人：
   您好！
   因我公司享有国家优惠政策，纳税率底于一般纳税公司。为了贵公司的利益得到提高，更能方便、
快捷的开到税务发票，现长期对外代开发票，贵公司如有下列情况需要可一一为您效劳：
一、  公司做帐、进、出口差额的；
二、  客户压低货价、利润微薄的；
三、  采购时需要正式票据报销的；
四、  其它涉税项目的。
   
我们以金额大小收费：
一、 商品销售发票（1%--2%）
二、 增殖税专用发票（4%--7%）
三、 运输、广告、其它服务（1%--2%）
四、 海关缴款书（3%--5%）
如有不祥欢迎电来邮咨询！
祝：生意兴隆达三江！
财源广进永不停！   
注：请保留以备后用！
 深圳市祥兴富实业有限公司
 联系电话：（0）13682474266
 电话传真： 0755-81151172
  邮   箱： [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 联 系 人：   陈哲


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Unidentified subject!

[D. Starner]

> Also, in any sane legal
> system, it should only affect those users who willingly violate the licence,
> even after a cease-and-desist letter, and i would say they deserve what they
> get.

In any sane legal system, the judge is going to find out what's going 
on from both sides before he even considers dismissing the case. That 
means that the user has to hire a French lawyer to write a response to
the statement of cause. Unless the judges are omniscient, that's what
has to happen.

And let's be honest; a court case may look obvious to us, but few 
judges have ever had a case where an open-sourceish license is 
involved, and not many more are familiar with programming and the
free software community. The judge may need some time to get up
to speed. 

> In the ocaml case, the upstream authors being a small team of 6-10 people 
> from the academic world, and wanting to be as unbothered as possible in 
> all these issues, also may fear the violation of the ocaml licence by 
> entities such as sun or microsoft, which would gain from the ocaml 
> technology in both java and C#,

I understand they fear the use of OCaml code in any non-functional
programming system, Free or not. In any case, neither Sun or Microsoft
is probably going to want to copy code from OCaml; they want to copy
ideas. And that is not protected by copyright law.

> fear that a court of venue in the US may render any chance of getting
> justice void, given the money governed US legal system.

Somehow, I am left unconcerned by the irrational fears of bigots. I'm
sure Americans could equally rational worry that a court of venue in 
France may render any chance of getting justice void, giving the fact
they are Americans.


-- 
___
Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com
http://promo.mail.com/adsfreejump.htm

Re: Unidentified subject!

[Andrew Suffield]

On Wed, Oct 01, 2003 at 05:22:25PM -0400, Richard Stallman wrote:
> I believe there was never a time when only the FSF pushed for free
> software.
> 
> I should have said "the GNU Project" rather than "the FSF", since the
> GNU Project led to FSF and has always been larger.
> 
> When the GNU Project started, there was no other organized effort
> to make software free.  We were the first to aim to make it possible
> to use a computer without non-free software.

Sounds to me like a set of criteria carefully invented to fit the GNU
project.

-- 
  .''`.  ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
 : :' :  http://www.debian.org/ |
 `. `'  |
   `- -><-  |


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Unidentified subject!

[Thomas Bushnell, BSG]

Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> I believe there was never a time when only the FSF pushed for free
> software.
> 
> I should have said "the GNU Project" rather than "the FSF", since the
> GNU Project led to FSF and has always been larger.
> 
> When the GNU Project started, there was no other organized effort
> to make software free.  We were the first to aim to make it possible
> to use a computer without non-free software.

This may be true, but many things happen without an organized effort.
There were plenty of people who then, and now, believed in free
software and worked for it.  They were often happy to align themselves
with the GNU Project, which had no small role in the success of that
project.

It seems to me that a serious problem is that we don't know at all
what the opinions of the members of the GNU Project are about these
issues, and that a process for finding out would be of great service
to the community.

Thomas

Re: Unidentified subject!

[Richard Stallman]

I believe there was never a time when only the FSF pushed for free
software.

I should have said "the GNU Project" rather than "the FSF", since the
GNU Project led to FSF and has always been larger.

When the GNU Project started, there was no other organized effort
to make software free.  We were the first to aim to make it possible
to use a computer without non-free software.

Re: Unidentified subject!

[Thomas Bushnell, BSG]

Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> I didn't say that.  I said we built the community, which we did by
> pushing for free software when nobody else did.  Of course, many
> others have contributed since then.

I believe there was never a time when only the FSF pushed for free
software.

Thomas

Re: Unidentified subject!

[Richard Stallman]

> The Free Software Foundation built the free software community,
> years before Debian was started,

This is at least much of a "nasty cheap shot" as what I said.  And
you've done it before.

It is not a "shot" at all.  I was defending the FSF from an
accusation, not attacking Debian.  I apologize if anyone got
the wrong impression.

The FSF has done wonderful things for the Free
Software community, but it is false to claim it had sole
responsibility for the community.

I didn't say that.  I said we built the community, which we did by
pushing for free software when nobody else did.  Of course, many
others have contributed since then.

Re: Unidentified subject!

[Thomas Bushnell, BSG]

Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> Your casual suggestion to "pick whichever seems better" leaves out the
> object: better for whom?  For the Free Software community?  For the
> Free Software Foundation, whose goals are quite different?
> 
> That is a cheap shot, because it reflects only your decision to be
> nasty.  I could make the same kind of cheap shot by saying "Better for
> whom?  For the Free Software community?  Or for Debian, whose goals
> are quite different?"  I choose not to do this, but others do it to
> me.

It's not a cheap shot.  It's a serious question: Whose goals are we
going to consider?

You once told me that you would frequently read only the beginning of
email messages, and ignore the rest as soon as you saw something you
didn't like.  I think you did that here.  Brian went on to expalin
carefully just what he meant, and to explain why having different
interests here was not a bad thing.

Re: Unidentified subject!

[Thomas Bushnell, BSG]

Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> 1) Because the borders between the cases are ambiguous and uncertain.
> 
> I sent a message a day or two ago (perhaps after you sent this one)
> which addresses that issue.
> 
> 2) Because we want to be able to combine works from different sources,
> 
> As I explained, this desire is usually impossible due to
> incompatibility of licenses.  To reject the GFDL on these grounds and
> accept some other GPL-incompatible license is a double standard.

Wrong, wrong, wrong.  We want to be able to combine works.

I keep repeating this, you keep saying "I understand you", and then
you keep proceeding as if I hadn't repeated it.

The desire expressed in number two is *not* about the desire to
combine any two arbitrary works.  We have that desire, but we agree
that it isn't currently met, and it doesn't impact freeness.

So let's think about *extension* rather than combination.  Can I
extend work X and have it be a piece of free software?

Any free software license must meet that test.  The GFDL does not meet
that test.

There is no double standard, because you have misconstrued the
standard.  The standard is NOT whether X meets:

"For all works A, A can be combined with X and still be free."  If
that were our test, it would be inconsistent to be bothered that the
GFDL fails, since of course most free software licenses fail.  We are
concerned with whether X meets:

"There exists a work A of free software, such that A can be combined
with X and still be free software."

It is this test which the GFDL fails, and it fails not because it has
terms which happen to be inconsistent with this or that free software
license, but rather because it contains terms which are fundamentally
inimical to the very concept of free software itself.

It might be sensible not to care about this if documentation and
programs were radically different things, but they simply are not.

Thomas

Re: Unidentified subject!

[Anthony DeRobertis]

On Wed, 2003-09-24 at 20:17, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:

> Here's the test.  I want to write a brand new program.  I insist it be
> free software, but I am otherwise entirely agnostic about which free
> software license I use.  I will use any license.
> 
> I want to incorporate parts of a GFDL'd manual into this new program.

I've read the above several times, and as far as I can tell, it's a
very, very, long way of saying "the GFDL is not a free software license,
and contains no conversion clause to one."


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Re: Unidentified subject!

[Nathanael Nerode]

Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:

We reject the GFDL because it is not merely incomptability of
licenses.

Here's the test.  I want to write a brand new program.  I insist it be
free software, but I am otherwise entirely agnostic about which free
software license I use.  I will use any license.

I want to incorporate parts of a GFDL'd manual into this new program.
I am not going to incorporate any other previously written bits from
any source.
For instance, I'm writing a new self-documenting make program (I was 
actually in the process of doing this at one point, although it's been 
suspended for a while).   It uses very different algorithms from 
existing 'make's (so doesn't benefit from other 'make's code).  But it 
would benefit greatly from lifting portions of the "GNU Make" manual for 
documentation.



What license should I use for my program?

This is not a case of incompatibility.

Re: Unidentified subject!

[Thomas Bushnell, BSG]

Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> 1) Because the borders between the cases are ambiguous and uncertain.
> 
> I sent a message a day or two ago (perhaps after you sent this one)
> which addresses that issue.

By saying "everything has ambiguous and uncertain borders".  But hey!
We don't need a border at all here!  We can ENTIRELY AVOID the
problem.  Why should we accept it then?

> 2) Because we want to be able to combine works from different sources,
> 
> As I explained, this desire is usually impossible due to
> incompatibility of licenses.  To reject the GFDL on these grounds and
> accept some other GPL-incompatible license is a double standard.

We reject the GFDL because it is not merely incomptability of
licenses.

Here's the test.  I want to write a brand new program.  I insist it be
free software, but I am otherwise entirely agnostic about which free
software license I use.  I will use any license.

I want to incorporate parts of a GFDL'd manual into this new program.
I am not going to incorporate any other previously written bits from
any source.

What license should I use for my program?

This is not a case of incompatibility.

Re: Unidentified subject!

[Richard Stallman]

Your casual suggestion to "pick whichever seems better" leaves out the
object: better for whom?  For the Free Software community?  For the
Free Software Foundation, whose goals are quite different?

That is a cheap shot, because it reflects only your decision to be
nasty.  I could make the same kind of cheap shot by saying "Better for
whom?  For the Free Software community?  Or for Debian, whose goals
are quite different?"  I choose not to do this, but others do it to
me.

(Frankly, I didn't even think about "better for whom".  I certainly
didn't imagine it meant "Better for the FSF".  In the FSF we avoid
these gray areas, so we would never be the ones deciding.)

The Free Software Foundation built the free software community, years
before Debian was started, using the same policies that you are
criticizing now.  That doesn't mean you have to agree with our
policies, but it makes your cheap shot even cheaper.

Cheap shots like this are another reason why I have decided not to
discuss the matter further.

Re: Unidentified subject!

[Richard Stallman]

1) Because the borders between the cases are ambiguous and uncertain.

I sent a message a day or two ago (perhaps after you sent this one)
which addresses that issue.

2) Because we want to be able to combine works from different sources,

As I explained, this desire is usually impossible due to
incompatibility of licenses.  To reject the GFDL on these grounds and
accept some other GPL-incompatible license is a double standard.

   and something covered by the GFDL cannot be combined with ANY
   program to produce a work of free software.

By now you've seen my response to that point.

Re: Unidentified subject!

[Brian T. Sniffen]

Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> Your casual suggestion to "pick whichever seems better" leaves out the
> object: better for whom?  For the Free Software community?  For the
> Free Software Foundation, whose goals are quite different?
>
> That is a cheap shot, because it reflects only your decision to be
> nasty.  

Excuse me?  I've been trying to conduct a polite conversation.  I
certainly haven't made a "decision to be nasty" or started taking
cheap shots: the FSF's goals are indisputably different from those of
the members of the Free Software community.  The FSF's goals are its
attempt to fulfill the *best interests* of the community -- this is
one of the best arguments for the GPL and copyright assignment to the
FSF, that it will work towards the long-term interests of Freedom, not
for the wants and goals of the current members of the community.

> I could make the same kind of cheap shot by saying "Better for
> whom?  For the Free Software community?  Or for Debian, whose goals
> are quite different?"

And certainly, Debian's goals are different from those of the FS
community: Debian's goals are its users *and* Free Software.

> I choose not to do this, but others do it to me.

You have done this several times in this thread.  For example:

> The Free Software Foundation built the free software community,
> years before Debian was started,

This is at least much of a "nasty cheap shot" as what I said.  And
you've done it before.  The FSF has done wonderful things for the Free
Software community, but it is false to claim it had sole
responsibility for the community.

> (Frankly, I didn't even think about "better for whom".  I certainly
> didn't imagine it meant "Better for the FSF".  In the FSF we avoid
> these gray areas, so we would never be the ones deciding.)

You mean you *ignore* those gray areas.  As a reminder, we're talking
about gray areas between program and documentation.  The emacs manual
contains both.  TeX is both.  The FSF has signed off on both as being
Free -- one as documentation alone, the other as software alone.
Debian avoids those grey areas by insisting everything be treated as
software: it's not a perfect approach, but it gets the abstract
philosophy out of the way and gives more time for producing a Free
OS.  It's the FSF, not Debian, which has chosen to introduce a
classification system, separating Software from Documentation.

Many of those on this list have asked about your reasons for doing so,
and we've never gotten a clear response -- some allusions to
convenience for printers, I think, and that's all.

But given you've defined this split, and you want Debian to follow
your lead in this, it seems only reasonable for you to provide a good
guideline... telling us that *we* should "pick whichever seems better"
doesn't help much with that, so your suggestion that Debian permit
restrictions on documentation which it would not permit for software
is so far unconvincing.

> Cheap shots like this are another reason why I have decided not to
> discuss the matter further.

Wonderful to hear.  Debian's pulled its
too-passionate-to-talk-reasonably members off this discussion and sent
in cooler heads; who will the FSF be sending to talk to Debian, now
that you're too upset to continue?

I dare not speak for even all the readers of debian-legal, but I for
one am eager to continue discussing this with the FSF.

-Brian

Re: Unidentified subject!

[Thomas Bushnell, BSG]

Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> You've asked me to explain why the criteria for free documentation
> licenses should be different from free software licenses (or, as you
> would perhaps put it, free computer program licenses).  I would rather
> ask why they should be the same, since they deal with different
> situations.  

A fair question.  Some answers:

1) Because the borders between the cases are ambiguous and uncertain.
2) Because we want to be able to combine works from different sources,
   and something covered by the GFDL cannot be combined with ANY
   program to produce a work of free software.

Re: Unidentified subject!

[Anthony DeRobertis]

On Sun, 2003-09-21 at 18:33, Richard Stallman wrote:
> "If you publish or distribute Opaque copies of the Document numbering 
> more than 100, you must either include a machine-readable Transparent 
> copy along with each Opaque copy," could indeed be read differently 
> than the GPL. I think the FSF was thinking "book in a book store" here, 
> not "FTP site" or "table at a Linux convention."
> 
> I'm not sure what the scenario is, or what the perceived problem is.

The perceived problem is this: Let's say I want to put a GFDL document
on my FTP site, in an opaque form. My FTP site is popular, so it will
distribute copies numbering more than 100.

I think its reasonable that if I just put a transparent form alongside
the PDF, that should be all I have to do. Instead, the GFDL seems to
read that I must somehow "include a machine-readble Transparent copy"
(i.e., not allow the opaque form to be downloaded without the tansparent
form) or keep the transparent form available for (forgive me if I'm
mistaken about the time) one year.

Basically, the problem is if the answer to this question from the GPL
FAQ:

applies to the GFDL as well.


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Re: Unidentified subject!

[Brian T. Sniffen]

Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> None of these differences correctly classifies Hello as both a program 
> and documentation, as far as I can tell.
>
> Hello is an example program.

Yes... and thus both program and documentation.

>   It is difficult 
> to deal with such grey areas and I assume that it requires a 
> case-by-case review.
>
> I have never found it difficult.  When it's hard to decide, neither
> choice is really wrong, so pick whichever seems better.

TeX is both program and documentation, as are essentially all literate
programs.  Entries to the various Obfuscated Programming Contests are
both program and documentation.  These are all gray areas... and more
importantly, are members of *both* the set of programs and the set of
documentation.  So *either* choice is wrong.  It is more correct to
say that all of these are software (i.e. non-hardware), and we should
make sure that all software is free.

Your casual suggestion to "pick whichever seems better" leaves out the
object: better for whom?  For the Free Software community?  For the
Free Software Foundation, whose goals are quite different?  Debian has
to answer: "For the Debian Users and for Free Software."

-Brian

Re: Unidentified subject!

[MJ Ray]

On 2003-09-22 12:34:27 +0100 Mathieu Roy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

Well, when I read a text, I have all the means necessary to understand
how the idea works. Not with a program unless I get the source.


It depends on the program, but if you have the source, you do not feel 
that you need to the freedom to modify it?



And rewriting an implementation is not at all likely rephrasing two
words.


It's not that different either.

Re: Unidentified subject!

[Steve Dobson]

Mathieu

On Mon, Sep 22, 2003 at 11:38:18AM +0200, Mathieu Roy wrote:
> Steve Dobson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a tapoté :
> > The Social Contract is about producing the "Debian system" and other
> > works that provide a useful platform for our users.  The Operating 
> > System is just part of that work.
> 
> I see it as the result of that work.
 
But an operating system is defined by the Oxford English Dictionary as
"the lowest level software that supports a computer's basic functions, 
such as scheduling tasks and controlling peripherals".  Now the Debian
System contains more than just low level system software like Apache,
TeX, and XFree86.  While these packages are important there are not
necessary.  There for the Debian System is more than an OS.
 
> > Yes, wouldn't it be much nicer to live in a world where everything is
> > free.
> 
> I agree. But I feel free enough when I can redistribute as I will a
> political essay from someone else. If I feel a need to edit that
> essay, I just start writing my own essay, by quoting eventually the
> original one. And if I must quote almost all the original one, it
> means that I have no so many things to add and I would just make a
> commentary about it.

Agreed.

>  I do not see any urgent freedom to protect here,
> apart the freedom to redistribute a document.

Maybe you do not, but others, in different circumstances, may.

> Someone can grant anybody to modify his political essays, but I do not
> think that not giving this right is similar than forbidding anybody to
> access the code of a program, to modify it and redistribute it.

I do not claim that both are similar.  What I, and others in Debian judging
from this list, are saying is that to restrict documentation is this 
way does not make it 100% free.  Being "100% free" is a requirement of
the Debian Social Contract #4.

Steve
-- 
You will wish you hadn't.


pgpQ0KN9ugT96.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Unidentified subject!

[MJ Ray]

On 2003-09-22 18:10:18 +0100 Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:

http://www.debian.org/vote/1999/vote_0002


Interesting.  Did anyone spot that it seems not to meet DFSG?  A 
casual search with vote;logo;dfsg of 
vote/legal/devel/user/project/policy returns no matches for the 
quarter containing April 1999.

Re: Unidentified subject!

[Richard Stallman]

None of these differences correctly classifies Hello as both a program 
and documentation, as far as I can tell.

Hello is an example program.

  It is difficult 
to deal with such grey areas and I assume that it requires a 
case-by-case review.

I have never found it difficult.  When it's hard to decide, neither
choice is really wrong, so pick whichever seems better.

Re: Unidentified subject!

[Branden Robinson]

On Mon, Sep 22, 2003 at 09:10:07AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2003-09-22 07:30:41 +0100 Mathieu Roy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >And do you really think that every software (of your wide definition)
> >you can have on computer is part of the Operating System? The goal of
> >Debian is to provide an Operating System, isn't it?
> 
> See http://www.uk.debian.org/intro/about#what
> 
> >Apparently it's clear that Debian do not consider that his very own
> >logo must be free software 
> 
> Has Debian taken a decision on that?

Yes.

http://www.debian.org/vote/1999/vote_0002

Also see:

http://www.debian.org/vote/1999/vote_0005

(Please forgive Darren Benham's inability to spell the word "dual".)

-- 
G. Branden Robinson| The more ridiculous a belief
Debian GNU/Linux   | system, the higher the probability
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | of its success.
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- Wayne R. Bartz


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Unidentified subject!

[Matthew Garrett]

Mathieu Roy wrote:

>Well, when I read a text, I have all the means necessary to understand
>how the idea works. Not with a program unless I get the source.

We consider even trivial software such as "Hello world" to be worthy of
Freeness, even though in this case you have everything necessary to
understand how the idea works without the source.

But fundamentally, you do not appear to believe that the ability to make
derived works from philosophical texts (or various other things) is a
necessity - Debian seems to. The sheer number of postings you have made
should have made it clear that you are not going to change our opinions,
and we are not going to change yours. Further discussion of this seems
fairly pointless. Can we just agree to differ?
-- 
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Unidentified subject!

[Josselin Mouette]

Le lun 22/09/2003 à 08:30, Mathieu Roy a écrit :
> Apparently it's clear that Debian do not consider that his very own
> logo must be free software -- that's right, you do not need a logo at
> all to have a complete free operating system. 
> If Debian already recognize that non-program software can be non-free
> without that being a problem, why refusing to include a documentation
> that include a non-program software (technical documentation is
> likely program)?

Can you read ?
*WE DO NOT SHIP THE OFFICIAL DEBIAN LOGO WITHIN THE DEBIAN OPERATING
SYSTEM.*

And if you have problems with English:
*LE LOGO OFFICIEL DEBIAN NE FAIT PAS PARTIE DU SYSTÈME D'EXPLOITATION
DEBIAN.*

The open use logo has another issue as its license needs a better
wording, but almost everyone on this list will agree that it needs to be
clarified. And you should note that while SPI is ready to change its
licensing to keep the open use logo in main (AND NOT THE OFFICIAL DEBIAN
LOGO WHICH HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE DEBIAN OPERATING SYSTEM), the FSF
doesn't seem to be willing to do such things.

Nobody here is asking the FSF to make the political statements on their
website DFSG-free. We are explaining that all parts of the Debian
operating system, including documentations (BUT NOT THE OFFICIAL DEBIAN
LOGO WHICH IS NOT PART OF THE DEBIAN OPERATING SYSTEM), must be
DFSG-free.
-- 
 .''`.   Josselin Mouette/\./\
: :' :   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
`. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED]
  `-  Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom


signature.asc
Description: Ceci est une partie de message	numériquement signée

Re: Unidentified subject!

[Mathieu Roy]

MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a tapoté :

> On 2003-09-22 10:38:18 +0100 Mathieu Roy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [...]
> > I feel free enough when I can redistribute as I will a
> > political essay from someone else.  If I feel a need to edit that
> > essay, I just start writing my own essay
> 
> Some people feel the same about software in general.

About programs do you mean?

Well, when I read a text, I have all the means necessary to understand
how the idea works. Not with a program unless I get the source.

And rewriting an implementation is not at all likely rephrasing two
words.



-- 
Mathieu Roy
 
  Homepage:
http://yeupou.coleumes.org
  Not a native english speaker: 
http://stock.coleumes.org/doc.php?i=/misc-files/flawed-english

Re: Unidentified subject!

[MJ Ray]

On 2003-09-22 10:38:18 +0100 Mathieu Roy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]

I feel free enough when I can redistribute as I will a
political essay from someone else.  If I feel a need to edit that
essay, I just start writing my own essay


Some people feel the same about software in general.  It is barely 
relevant, unless you want to make the case that Debian should not have 
any standard of freedom because it will never satisfy everyone.

Re: Unidentified subject!

[Mathieu Roy]

Steve Dobson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a tapoté :

> Mathieu
> 
> On Mon, Sep 22, 2003 at 08:30:41AM +0200, Mathieu Roy wrote:
> > MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a tapoté :
> > 
> > And do you really think that every software (of your wide definition)
> > you can have on computer is part of the Operating System? The goal of
> > Debian is to provide an Operating System, isn't it?
> 
> The Social Contract is about producing the "Debian system" and other
> works that provide a useful platform for our users.  The Operating 
> System is just part of that work.

I see it as the result of that work.


> > So, you recognize that in fact you want every literary works to be
> > DFSG-compliant, software or not.
> > 
> > It totally explains why you need a so broad definition of software. 
> 
> Yes, wouldn't it be much nicer to live in a world where everything is
> free.

I agree. But I feel free enough when I can redistribute as I will a
political essay from someone else. If I feel a need to edit that
essay, I just start writing my own essay, by quoting eventually the
original one. And if I must quote almost all the original one, it
means that I have no so many things to add and I would just make a
commentary about it. I do not see any urgent freedom to protect here,
apart the freedom to redistribute a document.

Someone can grant anybody to modify his political essays, but I do not
think that not giving this right is similar than forbidding anybody to
access the code of a program, to modify it and redistribute it.



-- 
Mathieu Roy
 
  Homepage:
http://yeupou.coleumes.org
  Not a native english speaker: 
http://stock.coleumes.org/doc.php?i=/misc-files/flawed-english

Re: Unidentified subject!

[MJ Ray]

On 2003-09-22 07:30:41 +0100 Mathieu Roy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

And do you really think that every software (of your wide definition)
you can have on computer is part of the Operating System? The goal of
Debian is to provide an Operating System, isn't it?


See http://www.uk.debian.org/intro/about#what


Apparently it's clear that Debian do not consider that his very own
logo must be free software 


Has Debian taken a decision on that?  At least some developers think 
that having a non-DFSG-free logo is a bug, for similar reasons as 
those that mean having non-DFSG-free manuals is a bug.



Maybe because the software that must be included in a Free Software
Operating System is mostly programs and documentation...


No auxiliary data files at all?  Also, FSF do not consider 
documentation software.



So, you recognize that in fact you want every literary works to be
DFSG-compliant, software or not.


This makes it sound as if this is a sudden admission on my part.  It 
is not.  I believe I have been fairly consistent on this point, even 
from before I was aware of the FSF.



It totally explains why you need a so broad definition of software.


It is not a broad definition of software, but a correct one.  I 
encourage GNU to research the origins of the word.



As a matter of fact, you are no longer discussing about an Operating
System.


This is hardly my fault.  The previous article invited it.  Maybe FDL 
fans should keep more tightly to the problem under discussion, but 
tangents are always occurring.  If you feel we stray too far to be 
relevant, take it off-list, as I frequently do.


--
MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know.
http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ gopher://g.towers.org.uk/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Creative copyleft computing services via http://www.ttllp.co.uk/

Re: Unidentified subject!

[Steve Dobson]

Mathieu

On Mon, Sep 22, 2003 at 08:30:41AM +0200, Mathieu Roy wrote:
> MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a tapoté :
> 
> And do you really think that every software (of your wide definition)
> you can have on computer is part of the Operating System? The goal of
> Debian is to provide an Operating System, isn't it?

The Social Contract is about producing the "Debian system" and other
works that provide a useful platform for our users.  The Operating 
System is just part of that work.

> Apparently it's clear that Debian do not consider that his very own
> logo must be free software -- that's right, you do not need a logo at
> all to have a complete free operating system. 
> If Debian already recognize that non-program software can be non-free
> without that being a problem, why refusing to include a documentation
> that include a non-program software (technical documentation is
> likely program)?

True, recent e-mails show that this is/was a problem.  One that is being
fixed by making the Debian logo a trademark.

> Maybe because the software that must be included in a Free Software
> Operating System is mostly programs and documentation... 

Agreed, but just and OS is a very limited beast.  One needs applications
to make the platform do "real" work.  Thus the Debian system.
 
> So, you recognize that in fact you want every literary works to be
> DFSG-compliant, software or not.
> 
> It totally explains why you need a so broad definition of software. 

Yes, wouldn't it be much nicer to live in a world where everything is
free.

> As a matter of fact, you are no longer discussing about an Operating
> System. 

At last we agree.

Steve

-- 
disbar, n:
As distinguished from some other bar.


pgp2sF1EifJdn.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Unidentified subject!

[Mathieu Roy]

MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a tapoté :

> On 2003-09-21 23:33:41 +0100 Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Defining all these thing as software is a peculiar way to use the
> > word.
> 
> Not at all.  It is the original and proper meaning, as far as I can
> tell.  It seems to be a neologism created to cover all things stored
> in the computer, when the WW2-ish phrase "stored program" was not
> adequate.  The first known use in print is John W Tukey in the January
> 1958 edition of American Mathematical Monthly, with a short and vague
> explanation as "interpretive routines, compilers, and other aspects,"
> contrasted with hardware.  As with any neologism, it may have fuzzed a
> little, but the contrast with hardware is constant.

And do you really think that every software (of your wide definition)
you can have on computer is part of the Operating System? The goal of
Debian is to provide an Operating System, isn't it?

Apparently it's clear that Debian do not consider that his very own
logo must be free software -- that's right, you do not need a logo at
all to have a complete free operating system. 
If Debian already recognize that non-program software can be non-free
without that being a problem, why refusing to include a documentation
that include a non-program software (technical documentation is
likely program)?



> > Likewise, in the term "Free
> > Software Movement" and "Free Software Foundation", "software" refers
> > specifically to computer programs.  Our criteria for free software
> > licenses concern licenses for computer programs.
> 
> I am not familiar with the "Free Software Movement" organisation and
> can find no record of it.  The "Free Software Foundation" uses an odd
> definition of software.

Maybe because the software that must be included in a Free Software
Operating System is mostly programs and documentation... 



> > You've asked me to explain why the criteria for free documentation
> > licenses should be different from free software licenses (or, as
> > you would perhaps put it, free computer program licenses).  I
> > would rather ask why they should be the same, since they deal with
> > different situations.
> 
> Why should they be different?  The freedom to adapt other literary
> works is no less necessary than the freedom to adapt programs.  I
> suspect we have opinions on that, if your views are similar to the
> other GNU project members who support FDL and have participated on
> this list.

So, you recognize that in fact you want every literary works to be
DFSG-compliant, software or not.

It totally explains why you need a so broad definition of software. 

As a matter of fact, you are no longer discussing about an Operating
System. 




-- 
Mathieu Roy
 
  Homepage:
http://yeupou.coleumes.org
  Not a native english speaker: 
http://stock.coleumes.org/doc.php?i=/misc-files/flawed-english

Re: Unidentified subject!

[Nathanael Nerode]

RMS wrote:
>The GNU Project's motive for using invariant sections is not the issue
>here; that's a GNU Project decision, not a Debian decision.

Out of curiosity, where *is* it the issue?  As a GNU Project 
contributor who disapproves of GFDL Invariant Sections, and knowing 
quite a few other GNU Project contributors and members who feel the same 
way, where should we attempt to be heard so as to have some influence on 
the GNU Project as a whole?

-- 
Nathanael Nerode  
http://home.twcny.rr.com/nerode/neroden/fdl.html

Why documentation and programs should be treated alike (was Re: Unidentified subject!)

[Nathanael Nerode]

RMS wote:
>For the sake of avoiding confusion, please note that I use "software"
>in the meaning I believe is standard, referring to computer programs
>only.
This is not what I believe to be the standard meaning or the historically 
correct meaning, but thanks for avoiding confusion.

>The main difference between a program and documentation is that a
>program does something, while documentation is passive;

By this argument, source code to a program (of the sort which must be 
compiled to run) is not a program.  And can therefore, in your opinion be 
encumbered by unlimited numbers of Invariant Sections (presumably in 
'mandatory comments') while remaining free, as long as they can be removed 
from the actual executable binary, I suppose.  Correct?

Furthermore, a manual in any markup format (LaTeX, HTML, info, texinfo) is 
not passive: it does something, namely generating the actual manual in the 
intended-to-read format (printed, visible on screen in 'info' or 'mozilla', 
etc.)  So manuals in any markup format -- including all the GNU manuals -- 
are thus akin to programs, and should be judged by those criteria.  Correct?

This is far from a bright-line distinction.  It's such a fuzzy distinction 
that's it's probably not useful at all.

>Another difference is that distribution of programs on paper is
>rare, and not an important case to consider, whereas distribution of
>documentation on paper is a very important case.
OK, so this is an actual distinction.  I will concede that the clauses which 
apply *only* to distribution of printed copies may be defensible in this way.

>Another difference is that the you can see the words of the text in
>the manual, whereas you cannot see the source code in the executable
>of a program.
LaTeX markup vs. PostScript output?  Some stuff in the source code is visible 
in the 'final' version; other stuff isn't.  (Much the same is true with 
programs.)  Not a real difference.

>  For software, the danger is that the source won't be
>available at all.
The same danger *does* exist for manuals.  For instance, distributing only 
the postscript or 'dvi' version of a manual written in TeX.

>  For manuals, there is a real danger that the
>"source" will be in a format that free software cannot read, and thus
>useless.
The same danger *does* exist for programs, and happens often: a 'free' 
program written in an interpreted language with no free interpreter or 
translator is effectively non-free in exactly the same way.  Yet there is no 
similar clause in the GPL.

>  This is why we designed the requirement for "transparent"
>copies.
Which is very poorly drafted (it seems to effectively prohibit any source 
format which is not hand-written in a text editor), but not a fundamental 
point of disagreement.

>Another difference is that DRM systems to stop people from accessing
>documents are a real threat to our freedom, and we need to try to push
>against them in any way we can.
Not a difference.  They're being applied to programs too.

And from earlier in the message:
>I would rather ask why they should be the same, since they deal with 
>different situations.
I have explained this before, and I will repeat it.
Programs and program documentation are inherently linked; transfer between 
them is essential and basic.  Literate programming styles encourage 
documentation to be extracted directly from program source code, and 
documentation to be embedded directly in program source code.  Even when this 
is not done, documentation on a computer routinely has source code which is 
compiled into an 'executable' version, just like programs.  Every issue which 
has come up relating to freeness of programs has turned out to apply to 
documentation on a computer, and every issue relating to freeness of 
documentation on a computer has turned out to apply to programs.

--Nathanael

Re: Unidentified subject!

[MJ Ray]

On 2003-09-21 23:33:41 +0100 Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

Defining all these thing as software is a peculiar way to use the
word.


Not at all.  It is the original and proper meaning, as far as I can 
tell.  It seems to be a neologism created to cover all things stored 
in the computer, when the WW2-ish phrase "stored program" was not 
adequate.  The first known use in print is John W Tukey in the January 
1958 edition of American Mathematical Monthly, with a short and vague 
explanation as "interpretive routines, compilers, and other aspects," 
contrasted with hardware.  As with any neologism, it may have fuzzed a 
little, but the contrast with hardware is constant.



I don't think that is the best way to interpret the DFSG,
because it leads to unnecessary inflexibility.


That is your opinion and you are entitled to it.  Debian does not seem 
to want to make contradictory decisions on similar cases, so having an 
unambiguous public policy is desirable.



I do not try to tell the Debian developers how to make this decision
about interpreting the DFSG.


Thank you.  Your respect is noted.


My point is that it is a decision, and
that it goes contrary to the words of article 4 of the DFSG, which
seems to treat "software" as equivalent to "programs".


There is no article 4 of the DFSG.  Maybe you mean DFSG 4?  That says 
"Integrity of The Author's Source Code" and then has an explanation 
which uses a program as an example.  As you no doubt appreciate, 
programs are the most obvious example of software compiled from source 
code and it is only natural to use it in the explanation.



For the sake of avoiding confusion, please note that I use "software"
in the meaning I believe is standard, referring to computer programs
only.


That is your belief but not one shared by many on this list or the 
authors of the DFSG and Debian Social Contract, as far as we can tell.



Likewise, in the term "Free
Software Movement" and "Free Software Foundation", "software" refers
specifically to computer programs.  Our criteria for free software
licenses concern licenses for computer programs.


I am not familiar with the "Free Software Movement" organisation and 
can find no record of it.  The "Free Software Foundation" uses an odd 
definition of software.



You've asked me to explain why the criteria for free documentation
licenses should be different from free software licenses (or, as you
would perhaps put it, free computer program licenses).  I would rather
ask why they should be the same, since they deal with different
situations.


Why should they be different?  The freedom to adapt other literary 
works is no less necessary than the freedom to adapt programs.  I 
suspect we have opinions on that, if your views are similar to the 
other GNU project members who support FDL and have participated on 
this list.



If you reinterpret the DFSG's words by defining software
to include manuals, you are forced to treat them alike.


This is not a reinterpretation.  According to the authors who have 
discussed it, this is the original interpretation.  It should not be a 
surprise to anyone.



The main difference between a program and documentation is that a
program does something, while documentation is passive; you look at
it.  Another difference is that distribution of programs on paper is
rare, and not an important case to consider, whereas distribution of
documentation on paper is a very important case.

Another difference is that the you can see the words of the text in
the manual, whereas you cannot see the source code in the executable
of a program.  For software, the danger is that the source won't be
available at all.  For manuals, there is a real danger that the
"source" will be in a format that free software cannot read, and thus
useless.  This is why we designed the requirement for "transparent"
copies.

Another difference is that DRM systems to stop people from accessing
documents are a real threat to our freedom, and we need to try to push
against them in any way we can.


None of these differences correctly classifies Hello as both a program 
and documentation, as far as I can tell.  I suspect the other edge 
cases mentioned would also cause problems for this.  It is difficult 
to deal with such grey areas and I assume that it requires a 
case-by-case review.  Fortunately, Debian is spared that by requiring 
a common standard of freedom for all software in the operating system.


--
MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know.
http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ gopher://g.towers.org.uk/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Creative copyleft computing services via http://www.ttllp.co.uk/

Re: Unidentified subject!

[Steve Dobson]

RMS

On Sun, Sep 21, 2003 at 06:33:41PM -0400, Richard Stallman wrote:
>   Manuals, essays, licenses, and logos *encoded as bits on a 
> computer* are software.
> 
> Defining all these thing as software is a peculiar way to use the
> word.  I don't think that is the best way to interpret the DFSG,
> because it leads to unnecessary inflexibility.
> 
> I do not try to tell the Debian developers how to make this decision
> about interpreting the DFSG.  My point is that it is a decision, and
> that it goes contrary to the words of article 4 of the DFSG, which
> seems to treat "software" as equivalent to "programs".

My "New Little Oxford Dictionary" defines software as "computer
programs".  Not much help but it is only a pocket dictionary.

A quick search on the Net [1] turned up a longer, but basically similar
definition form the "American Heritage Dictionary".

Princeton University's "WordNet" defines software as "written
programs or procedures or rules and associated documentation
pertaining to the operation of a computer system and that are
stored in read/write memory".  As a *nix system can mmap(2) 
the CDROM content into memory then documentation can be 
software.

The "Free On-line Dictionary of Computing" has much more to say on
the subject and while it is "not common usage" it does allow "that
documentation (both paper and electronic) is also software."

While you may not use the term "software" in this way the DFSG is
_not_ breaking the rules of English by using the wider meaning.

Steve

[1] http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=software

-- 
White dwarf seeks red giant for binary relationship.


pgpramSlBbX0v.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Unidentified subject!

[Richard Stallman]

>> I'm curious: Considering the GPL prohibits binary-only distribution
>> under section 3, do you still hold that position?
>
> GPL 3b and 3c deal with that quite nicely.  Debian, for example,
> distributes its GPL'd software by offering the source on the same
> medium.

"If you publish or distribute Opaque copies of the Document numbering 
more than 100, you must either include a machine-readable Transparent 
copy along with each Opaque copy," could indeed be read differently 
than the GPL. I think the FSF was thinking "book in a book store" here, 
not "FTP site" or "table at a Linux convention."

I hope the FSF (RMS cc'd) is willing to make a minor change to this 
wording to make it clear that if you offer a machine-readable 
Transparent copy, but your offer is declined, then that's fine.

I'm not sure what the scenario is, or what the perceived problem is.

Re: Unidentified subject!

[Richard Stallman]

  Manuals, essays, licenses, and logos *encoded as bits on a 
computer* are software.

Defining all these thing as software is a peculiar way to use the
word.  I don't think that is the best way to interpret the DFSG,
because it leads to unnecessary inflexibility.

I do not try to tell the Debian developers how to make this decision
about interpreting the DFSG.  My point is that it is a decision, and
that it goes contrary to the words of article 4 of the DFSG, which
seems to treat "software" as equivalent to "programs".

For the sake of avoiding confusion, please note that I use "software"
in the meaning I believe is standard, referring to computer programs
only.  A software package, to be useful, needs to come with other
things--manuals, licenses, and sometimes essays and scientific
papers--but they are not the software.  Likewise, in the term "Free
Software Movement" and "Free Software Foundation", "software" refers
specifically to computer programs.  Our criteria for free software
licenses concern licenses for computer programs.

You've asked me to explain why the criteria for free documentation
licenses should be different from free software licenses (or, as you
would perhaps put it, free computer program licenses).  I would rather
ask why they should be the same, since they deal with different
situations.  If you reinterpret the DFSG's words by defining software
to include manuals, you are forced to treat them alike.  In the GNU
Project we don't define manuals as software, so we have no a priori
reason to treat them alike.

The main difference between a program and documentation is that a
program does something, while documentation is passive; you look at
it.  Another difference is that distribution of programs on paper is
rare, and not an important case to consider, whereas distribution of
documentation on paper is a very important case.

Another difference is that the you can see the words of the text in
the manual, whereas you cannot see the source code in the executable
of a program.  For software, the danger is that the source won't be
available at all.  For manuals, there is a real danger that the
"source" will be in a format that free software cannot read, and thus
useless.  This is why we designed the requirement for "transparent"
copies.

Another difference is that DRM systems to stop people from accessing
documents are a real threat to our freedom, and we need to try to push
against them in any way we can.

Another difference is that DRM

Re: Unidentified subject!

[Anthony DeRobertis]

On Saturday, Sep 20, 2003, at 01:14 US/Eastern, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:


Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:


I'm curious: Considering the GPL prohibits binary-only distribution
under section 3, do you still hold that position?


GPL 3b and 3c deal with that quite nicely.  Debian, for example,
distributes its GPL'd software by offering the source on the same
medium.


"If you publish or distribute Opaque copies of the Document numbering 
more than 100, you must either include a machine-readable Transparent 
copy along with each Opaque copy," could indeed be read differently 
than the GPL. I think the FSF was thinking "book in a book store" here, 
not "FTP site" or "table at a Linux convention."


I hope the FSF (RMS cc'd) is willing to make a minor change to this 
wording to make it clear that if you offer a machine-readable 
Transparent copy, but your offer is declined, then that's fine.

Re: Unidentified subject!

[Nathanael Nerode]

Richard Stallman wrote:
Yes.  "Debian will remain 100% free software".  That's the first line of the 
Debian Social Contract.  This means that everything in Debian must be free 
*software*.


That is one possible interpretation, but since it is based on
asserting that manuals, essays, licenses, and logos are software, I
think it is not the proper one.

We hope to show you the error of your ways.  ;-)


 I think the text was written without
regard to the presence of material other than software in the
distribution, and it ought to be interpreted in that light. 
Bruce Perens has clarified that the DFSG was intended to apply to 
everything on the Debian CD.  I don't think you're right about this.


It has been made clear *many* times that the interpretation of 
"software" generally used here is "the part of the computer which is not 
hardware".  This is the original and more accurate meaning of 
"software".  Manuals, essays, licenses, and logos *encoded as bits on a 
computer* are software.  A carving of a program on a stone tablet is not 
software.  Accordingly there is nothing in the Debian distribution which 
is not software.


But let us suppose, for the sake of argument, that we accept your 
interpretation.  I still see no reason to believe that documentation 
should be treated differently from programs with regard to freedom. 
Several good reasons have been given to treat it exactly the same way, 
many related to the difficulty of separating documentation entirely from 
programs, and the desirability of not separating it.


If you really have good, specific reasons to treat it differently in 
such a way that Invariant Sections are OK for documentation and not for 
programs, do tell; I haven't heard any.

Re: Unidentified subject!

[Brian T. Sniffen]

Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> On Friday, Sep 19, 2003, at 19:43 US/Eastern, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
>>
>> I, um, think he meant me, given I *did* say there is a violation of
>> DFSG 2, since binary-only distribution is not permitted.
>
> Ah! Yeah, that must be what I meant...
>
> I'm curious: Considering the GPL prohibits binary-only distribution
> under section 3, do you still hold that position?

GPL 3b and 3c deal with that quite nicely.  Debian, for example,
distributes its GPL'd software by offering the source on the same
medium.

-Brian

Re: Unidentified subject!

[Anthony DeRobertis]

On Friday, Sep 19, 2003, at 19:43 US/Eastern, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:


I, um, think he meant me, given I *did* say there is a violation of
DFSG 2, since binary-only distribution is not permitted.


Ah! Yeah, that must be what I meant...

I'm curious: Considering the GPL prohibits binary-only distribution 
under section 3, do you still hold that position?

Re: Unidentified subject!

[Thomas Bushnell, BSG]

Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> > The GNU Project's motive for using invariant sections is not the issue
> > here; that's a GNU Project decision, not a Debian decision.
> 
> You are arguing that you should have a voice in what Debian does.
> 
> I have said nothing of the kind.  The Debian developers decide what
> Debian does, and I recognize that.  I am only offering arguments to
> convince them.

Why should we listen to your arguments to convince us if you will not
listen to our arguments trying to convince you?

Re: Unidentified subject!

[Brian T. Sniffen]

"Brian W. Carver" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> Anthony DeRobertis writes:
>> I understand that; in fact, I was one of the many people who pointed out
>> that problem. But that's not what Brian said --- he said that there is a
>> violation of DFSG 2 "since it does not permit 'distribution in source
>> code as well as compiled form'." That's what I'd like a clarification
>> of.
>
> Actually, if you look at my original message again, I was quoting
> another list member there. I chose to quote him because I wasn't
> sure I understood what he was talking about either! For further
> clarification we may have to go back to the original source. (Sounds
> appropriate given the topic... ;) Brian --

I, um, think he meant me, given I *did* say there is a violation of
DFSG 2, since binary-only distribution is not permitted.

-Brian

Re: Unidentified subject!

[Brian W. Carver]

Anthony DeRobertis writes: 


I understand that; in fact, I was one of the many people who pointed out
that problem. But that's not what Brian said --- he said that there is a
violation of DFSG 2 "since it does not permit 'distribution in source
code as well as compiled form'." That's what I'd like a clarification
of.


Actually, if you look at my original message again, I was quoting another 
list member there. I chose to quote him because I wasn't sure I understood 
what he was talking about either! For further clarification we may have to 
go back to the original source. (Sounds appropriate given the topic... ;) 

Brian 

Re: Unidentified subject!

[Scott James Remnant]

On Thu, 2003-09-18 at 12:05, Richard Stallman wrote:

> That is why I recently asked to hear from Debian developers whether
> they are still making up their minds about the matter and whether they
> are interested in what I have to say about it.  If this is generally
> not the case, I will stop discussing the issue here.  I am not interested
> in beating a dead horse.
> 
From this can we assume that your position is as follows:

1) You are willing to try and convince Debian that the GFDL is either
   DFSG free, or that the DFSG need not apply to certain aspects of the
   GFDL.

2) You are unwilling to modify the GFDL, for example by allowing the
   removal of Invariant sections if the document title was changed, to
   ensure the licence is DFSG free in the eyes of Debian. 


If I've misinterpreted, could you indicate in what ways you would be
willing to discuss modification of the GFDL to accommodate those with a
strict reading of the DFSG?

I'm also somewhat assuming that your position and the FSF's position are
the same; if this is not the case, is there anyone else at the FSF who
would be willing to "join in"?


Many thanks in advance, 

Scott
-- 
Have you ever, ever felt like this?
Had strange things happen?  Are you going round the twist?


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Re: Unidentified subject!

[Brian T. Sniffen]

Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> On Thursday, Sep 18, 2003, at 11:24 US/Eastern, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
>
>> Also, the requirement to distribute a transparent form appears to
>> violate DFSG 2, since it does not permit "distribution in source code
>> as well as compiled form".
>
> Brian, I'm not sure how that follows. Could you elaborate?
>
> AFAICT, the requirement to distribute in transparent, e.g., source,
> form is quite similar to the requirement from the GPL, version 2,
> which we all consider free (per DFSG 10, if nothing else).

The GPL allows me to distribute *just* a binary, with the requirement
that I offer the source as well.  It also allows me to offer just
source.

The GFDL does not allow me to distribute *just* a non-Transparent
form.

-- 
Brian T. Sniffen[EMAIL PROTECTED]
   http://www.evenmere.org/~bts/

Re: Unidentified subject!

[Walter Landry]

Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 2003-09-18 at 16:05, Walter Landry wrote:
> 
> > The definition of transparent is similar to, but not the same as
> > source.  For example, the "source" for a LyX document is not
> > "transparent".
> 
> I understand that; in fact, I was one of the many people who pointed out
> that problem. But that's not what Brian said --- he said that there is a
> violation of DFSG 2 "since it does not permit 'distribution in source
> code as well as compiled form'." That's what I'd like a clarification
> of.

I see what you're saying.  Yes, Debian is allowed to distribute the
source to GFDL'd licenses, as long as Debian has a transparent version
as well.  If Debian doesn't have a transparent version, then it can't
distribute it at all.  So DFSG #2 doesn't really come into play.  It
is more DFSG #1, because Debian can't distribute it at all, and DFSG
#3, because modifications may make the result undistributable.

Regards,
Walter Landry
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Unidentified subject!

[Anthony DeRobertis]

On Thu, 2003-09-18 at 16:05, Walter Landry wrote:

> The definition of transparent is similar to, but not the same as
> source.  For example, the "source" for a LyX document is not
> "transparent".

I understand that; in fact, I was one of the many people who pointed out
that problem. But that's not what Brian said --- he said that there is a
violation of DFSG 2 "since it does not permit 'distribution in source
code as well as compiled form'." That's what I'd like a clarification
of.


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Re: Unidentified subject!

[Walter Landry]

Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> On Thursday, Sep 18, 2003, at 11:24 US/Eastern, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
> 
> > Also, the requirement to distribute a transparent form appears to
> > violate DFSG 2, since it does not permit "distribution in source code
> > as well as compiled form".
> 
> Brian, I'm not sure how that follows. Could you elaborate?
> 
> AFAICT, the requirement to distribute in transparent, e.g., source, 
> form is quite similar to the requirement from the GPL, version 2, which 
> we all consider free (per DFSG 10, if nothing else).

The definition of transparent is similar to, but not the same as
source.  For example, the "source" for a LyX document is not
"transparent".

Regards,
Walter Landry
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Unidentified subject!

[Jeremy Hankins]

Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thursday, Sep 18, 2003, at 11:24 US/Eastern, Brian T. Sniffen
> wrote:

>> Also, the requirement to distribute a transparent form appears to
>> violate DFSG 2, since it does not permit "distribution in source
>> code as well as compiled form".
>
> Brian, I'm not sure how that follows. Could you elaborate?
>
> AFAICT, the requirement to distribute in transparent, e.g., source,
> form is quite similar to the requirement from the GPL, version 2,
> which we all consider free (per DFSG 10, if nothing else).

The only problem with transparent versions I'm aware of is that they
way they're defined there may not be any such thing[1].  Fortunately,
the only thing you need a transparent version for (that I saw) is
section 3 (distributing in bulk).  The other references to transparent
versions generally have an "if available" caveat.  So the upshot, I
guess, is that you can't always distribute a GFDL'd document in bulk.
Clearly enough to make the GFDL non-DFSG-free, but I doubt this is
intentional on the FSF's part.


[1] For example, if you make substantial modifications using a word
processor like lyx or OpenOffice (or ms-word, for that matter) that
doesn't have a human-readable save format, there will not be a
transparent version of the new document.

-- 
Jeremy Hankins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333  9E10 D212 B5ED 37D0 0A03

Re: Unidentified subject!

[Anthony DeRobertis]

On Thursday, Sep 18, 2003, at 11:24 US/Eastern, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:


Also, the requirement to distribute a transparent form appears to
violate DFSG 2, since it does not permit "distribution in source code
as well as compiled form".


Brian, I'm not sure how that follows. Could you elaborate?

AFAICT, the requirement to distribute in transparent, e.g., source, 
form is quite similar to the requirement from the GPL, version 2, which 
we all consider free (per DFSG 10, if nothing else).

Re: Unidentified subject!

[Brian T. Sniffen]

Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

>   The argument for that is that there are many
> > such manuals and they would be useful to include, and the DFSG can
> > be interpreted to accept it.
>
>  The arguments appear to be:
>
> 1) There are many GFDL manuals.
> 2) The many GFDL manuals would be useful to include.
>
> That's two parts out of the three I mentioned, and the third part is
> crucial.  The DFSG doesn't directly say anything against the
> requirements of the GFDL.  I sent another longer message explaining
> why.

As a matter of fact, it does.  The DFSG directly forbids Invariant
Sections, which violate DFSG 4: the license restricts even source code
(the "transparent form") from being distributed in modified form.
Additionally, because Invariant Sections must be Secondary, the GFDL's
implementation violates DFSG 6.  There is *no* work of free software
which can be created as a derivative work of a GFDL-licensed manual
with invariant sections.

Also, the requirement to distribute a transparent form appears to
violate DFSG 2, since it does not permit "distribution in source code
as well as compiled form".

-Brian

-- 
Brian T. Sniffen[EMAIL PROTECTED]
   http://www.evenmere.org/~bts/

Re: Unidentified subject!

[D. Starner]

> The arguments appear to be:
>
>1) There are many GFDL manuals.
>2) The many GFDL manuals would be useful to include.

> That's two parts out of the three I mentioned, and the third part is
> crucial. 

But they are an irrelevant two parts. If Joe Blow writes a license 
for his program or documentation, it should get the same consideration 
under the DFSG as when the FSF does.

> The DFSG doesn't directly say anything against the
> requirements of the GFDL.

Section 3 says "The license must allow modifications and derived works[...]";
if that's ambiguous in any way about everything being modifiable, a note
on section 4, talking about patch files, says "The Debian group encourages all 
authors not to restrict any files, source or binary, from being modified.".
Given the license discussions over the years, I think it fairly
clear that everything must be modifiable -- your seperation of the
technical and non-technical material shows up nowhere in the DFSG.

> The GFDL allows you to make any changes you like in the technical
> substance of the manual, just as the TeX license allows you to make
> any changes you like in the technical substance of TeX.

The TeX license allows us to make any changes we like in the 
user-visible version of TeX. The GFDL doesn't. 

> > The DFSG says that we must have the right to modify everything, at
> > least by the use of patch files.

> I cannot find that in the DFSG. 

That would be section 3, "The license must allow modifications[...]". 

> This text [section 4] is specifically about
> source code for programs, and specifically about licenses that
> entirely forbid modified versions of the source code.  It is extremely
> specific and narrow.

Okay, but section 4 is merely a weakening of section 3. If section 4
doesn't apply, then everything must be modifiable.

If the GFDL doesn't fail the DFSG, then neither does a manual license with
the technical parts invariant and political parts modifiable; the DFSG
simply doesn't make that distinction. 

-- 
__
Sign-up for your own personalized E-mail at Mail.com
http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup

CareerBuilder.com has over 400,000 jobs. Be smarter about your job search
http://corp.mail.com/careers

Re: Unidentified subject!

[Mike Hommey]

On Thursday 18 September 2003 13:05, Richard Stallman wrote:
> I am not interested in beating a dead horse.

You have been for at least a whole week. Please stop that.

Thanks.

Mike

Re: Unidentified subject!

[Richard Stallman]

I couldn't believe that RMS actually wrote that when I read it.

You shouldn't have believed I actually wrote that, because he
misunderstood what I wrote.  He omitted a crucial part of the
argument, so that what remained was absurd; then he went on at length
pointing out just how absurd it was.

Re: Unidentified subject!

[Richard Stallman]

  The argument for that is that there are many
> such manuals and they would be useful to include, and the DFSG can
> be interpreted to accept it.

 The arguments appear to be:

1) There are many GFDL manuals.
2) The many GFDL manuals would be useful to include.

That's two parts out of the three I mentioned, and the third part is
crucial.  The DFSG doesn't directly say anything against the
requirements of the GFDL.  I sent another longer message explaining
why.

Re: Unidentified subject!

[Richard Stallman]

> You have mistaken the objection.  There is no reason to think it would
> be a small fractional increase, especially since little parts of
> manuals--single paragraphs even--are useful reusable bits just in the
> way that single functions of Lisp are.
> 
> Reusing a single paragraph is fair use--you don't need to follow the
> license conditions.

This is not true if we are reusing all the paragraphs, by extensive
reworking and reassembly.  (Say, to manufacture doc strings.)

You raised one scenario and I responded to that.  Now you're saying my
statement doesn't apply to a different scenario.  It wasn't meant to.

Let's not mix up different issues--that makes a discussion which
doesn't treat any issue thoughtfully.

Re: Unidentified subject!

[Richard Stallman]

> The GNU Project's motive for using invariant sections is not the issue
> here; that's a GNU Project decision, not a Debian decision.

You are arguing that you should have a voice in what Debian does.

I have said nothing of the kind.  The Debian developers decide what
Debian does, and I recognize that.  I am only offering arguments to
convince them.

That is why I recently asked to hear from Debian developers whether
they are still making up their minds about the matter and whether they
are interested in what I have to say about it.  If this is generally
not the case, I will stop discussing the issue here.  I am not interested
in beating a dead horse.

Re: Unidentified subject!

[MJ Ray]

On 2003-09-17 20:34:13 +0100 Brian W. Carver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
That's good to hear. Of course another related concern is 
forward-looking. It 
is a terrible waste of scare resources to have Debian create a 
DFSG-free 
manual every time a GFDL-licensed manual is produced for some new 
piece of 
software. [...]


Analogously, it may be considered a terrible waste of scarce resources 
to produce free software manuals when proprietary manuals (such as 
most of the ORA books) exist, but we do it anyway.  Debian is 
committed to providing its users with 100% free software.  If authors 
and publishers wish to produce manuals that are not free software, 
then we can ask them to reconsider, but ultimately we cannot include 
them.  We do not necessarily have to have Debian produce manuals 
itself.  We need to encourage wider development of free software 
manuals.  Suggestions (probably off-list) on how to do that are 
welcome.


The publisher of a significant number of manuals has apparently 
decided to produce manuals that are not free software and seems not to 
want to make them free software, and I don't see that how there will 
be sufficient common ground to change that basic problem.


It's a shame, definitely, but it always was when others did it too.

--
MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know.

Re: Unidentified subject!

[Brian W. Carver]

Branden Robinson writes:

Fortunately, it is not as much work as we might fear.  At least four GNU
Manuals that have recently had Invariant Sections added to them and
were relicensed under the GNU FDL were DFSG-free in earlier versions. 


Search the archives of this list for "traditional GNU documentation
license". 


However, important works like the GNU Emacs manual, _Using and Porting
GNU CC_, and _The GNU C Library Reference Manual_ have had invariant
sections for several years at least.


That's good to hear. Of course another related concern is forward-looking. 
It is a terrible waste of scare resources to have Debian create a DFSG-free 
manual every time a GFDL-licensed manual is produced for some new piece of 
software. Perhaps this situation will be avoided in other ways such as 
making efforts to encourage dual-licensing. But for now, I think it'd be 
best to avoid the situation altogether by seeking common ground. Hopefully 
something can be worked out. 

Re: Unidentified subject!

[Branden Robinson]

On Tue, Sep 16, 2003 at 07:58:01PM -0700, Brian C wrote:
> I think answers to these questions are critical if progress is to
> be made. If the FSF simply says, "This is our license. Now it is
> solely up to you to include manuals licensed in this way or not."
> then I think it is pretty clear that the consensus here will not
> favor the GFDL. This would be a shame both because of the enormous
> work it would create in replacing manuals, and because I still
> believe that with several tweaks to the GFDL many here would find
> it DFSG-consistent.

Fortunately, it is not as much work as we might fear.  At least four GNU
Manuals that have recently had Invariant Sections added to them and
were relicensed under the GNU FDL were DFSG-free in earlier versions.

Search the archives of this list for "traditional GNU documentation
license".

However, important works like the GNU Emacs manual, _Using and Porting
GNU CC_, and _The GNU C Library Reference Manual_ have had invariant
sections for several years at least.

-- 
G. Branden Robinson|
Debian GNU/Linux   |   Extra territorium jus dicenti
[EMAIL PROTECTED] |   impune non paretur.
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |


pgpwRPyHs4Y1S.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Unidentified subject!

[Peter S Galbraith]

Brian C <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Richard Stallman wrote:
> > The question at hand is whether Debian should accept or reject
> > GFDL-covered manuals.  The argument for that is that there are many
> > such manuals and they would be useful to include, and the DFSG can
> > be interpreted to accept it.
> 
> As one of those more inclined to listen to the rationale behind the
> GFDL, and as one who still leaves open the possibility that the
> DFSG might allow for something very much like the GFDL, I
> certainly hope that you do not intend the above to be an exhaustive
> list of the arguments in favor of including GFDL-licensed manuals
> in Debian. The arguments appear to be:
> 
> 1) There are many GFDL manuals.
> 2) The many GFDL manuals would be useful to include.
> 
> Obviously Debian (and the FSF) would not accept such arguments in
> other contexts. For instance, one would not make much headway in
> either circle regarding the inclusion of proprietary software by
> arguing either of:
> 
> 1) There are many proprietary software programs.
> 2) The many proprietary software programs would be useful to
> include.

I couldn't believe that RMS actually wrote that when I read it.

> Part of such a demonstration might include an explanation of
> the many tough decisions that the FSF had to make when drafting
> the GFDL, and the rationales behind each part. With a greater
> understanding of these tough issues, Debian developers might
> say, "Wow. They're right. That is a tough issue to deal with
> and we cannot think of any better way to write a license to
> deal with that problem. Hmmm, perhaps the GFDL is as free as
> we can get regarding this issue."

Which brings us back to:

:The principal argument in favor of the GFDL seems to be "this is the
:only way we can get our message out".
 
This is the only reason we were given so far as to why important
freedoms must be given up in the GFDL.   I for one don't believe that
method of getting the message out to be consistent with the message (of
freedom) itself.  So I cannot be convinced to give up the freedom and
still call the license free.

I don't feel we are making _any_ progress.  We should simply agree to
disagree.  Debian appears to believe in stronger freedom than the FSF.

Peter

Re: Unidentified subject!

[Brian C]

Richard Stallman wrote:

The question at hand is whether Debian should accept or reject
GFDL-covered manuals.  The argument for that is that there are many
such manuals and they would be useful to include, and the DFSG can
be interpreted to accept it.


As one of those more inclined to listen to the rationale behind the
GFDL, and as one who still leaves open the possibility that the
DFSG might allow for something very much like the GFDL, I
certainly hope that you do not intend the above to be an exhaustive
list of the arguments in favor of including GFDL-licensed manuals
in Debian. The arguments appear to be:

1) There are many GFDL manuals.
2) The many GFDL manuals would be useful to include.

Obviously Debian (and the FSF) would not accept such arguments in
other contexts. For instance, one would not make much headway in
either circle regarding the inclusion of proprietary software by
arguing either of:

1) There are many proprietary software programs.
2) The many proprietary software programs would be useful to
include.

It is obviously a great inconvenience to replace all the GFDL
manuals with new manuals licensed in a DFSG-consistent way. I
doubt anyone here disputes that. (If they do, they are welcome
to write all the replacement manuals and report back when they
are done.) But what we must find is an argument that clearly
demonstrates why the GFDL should be seen as consistent with the
DFSG.

Part of such a demonstration might include an explanation of
the many tough decisions that the FSF had to make when drafting
the GFDL, and the rationales behind each part. With a greater
understanding of these tough issues, Debian developers might
say, "Wow. They're right. That is a tough issue to deal with
and we cannot think of any better way to write a license to
deal with that problem. Hmmm, perhaps the GFDL is as free as
we can get regarding this issue."

If instead Debian developers say, "No. We don't think that is
the best licensing solution to the problem you describe. What
if instead the license said XYZ?" Then we are now making
progress toward drafting an improved version of the GFDL that
just might please everyone.

Collaborating in such a way is not easy, and I'll admit that
few here have demonstrated the will to keep their egos/tempers
reigned in long enough to have such a fruitful discussion.
Perhaps that is where Bruce Perens' efforts will be helpful.

But, I earnestly believe that if you took the parts of the GFDL
that list members have pointed out as particularly egregious
and described in detail what you were trying to accomplish and
why the current version of the GFDL seems/seemed to you the
best way to accomplish that, then at least some list readers
would have one of the above reactions described and progress
toward common ground could begin to be reached.

If I remember the list's complaints well enough, some key areas
to address would be:

1) Invariant sections
(a) Why have them?
(b) Why have each part of the license that deals with invariant
sections be precisely as it is? Could there be another way of
meeting the goals stated in (a) above that would be agreeable
to each group?

2) GPL Incompatibility
(a) Why make the GFDL incompatible with the GPL?
--Assumed a "Yes" answer to the question:
--(i)Does the FSF agree that the GFDL is GPL-incompatible?

3) No DRM
One of your previous messages to this list suggested to me that
you might not have intended some of these problems and were
"looking into it". So,
(a) What's the status of that?

4) Transparent and Opaque Copies
Jeremy Hankins wrote: "Under certain circumstances the document
may not have a transparent version (for example, after being
modified with a proprietary word processor).  This would make it
impossible to meet the requirements of section 3 ("Copying in
quantity") of the GFDL."
(a) Did the FSF intend this effect?
(b) What changes to the license could both remove this problem and
still be acceptable to the FSF?

I think answers to these questions are critical if progress is to
be made. If the FSF simply says, "This is our license. Now it is
solely up to you to include manuals licensed in this way or not."
then I think it is pretty clear that the consensus here will not
favor the GFDL. This would be a shame both because of the enormous
work it would create in replacing manuals, and because I still
believe that with several tweaks to the GFDL many here would find
it DFSG-consistent.

--
Brian W. Carver -- http://rurnt.com/brian  ,''`.
Try a free operating system at http://www.debian.org  : :' :
Support EFF! http://www.eff.org   `. `'
They're defending YOUR rights online!   `-

Re: Unidentified subject!

[Thomas Bushnell, BSG]

Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

>   The principal argument in favor of the GFDL seems
> to be "this is the only way we can get our message out".
> 
> The GNU Project's motive for using invariant sections is not the issue
> here; that's a GNU Project decision, not a Debian decision.

You are arguing that you should have a voice in what Debian does.

It seems only fair to allow that Debian should have a voice in what
the GNU Project does.

Regardless, I am a part of the GNU Project.  Shall we take a poll to
see whether the GNU Project agrees with your goals here?

> The question at hand is whether Debian should accept or reject
> GFDL-covered manuals.  The argument for that is that there are many
> such manuals and they would be useful to include, and the DFSG can
> be interpreted to accept it.

This is the same argument that non-free software producers give us all
the time.

Thomas

Re: Unidentified subject!

[Thomas Bushnell, BSG]

Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> For example, I might use a manual by tearing it into pieces and using
> the individual pages as confetti for a parade.  But I cannot copy
> GFDL'd manuals and then do this.  
> 
> I congratulate you on your imagination--it never occurred to me to
> think about this as a use of a manual.
> 
> As it happens, you are free to do that, because copyright does not
> cover tearing up a manual.  You don't need a license to give you
> permission to do that.

No no, I cannot *copy* the manuals and then distribute them this way.

> Yes, there are gray areas where it is hard to decide.  I had to think
> for months about whether the TeX license qualified as free, since it
> makes the whole of the original TeX source code invariant.  And I had
> to think for weeks about a LaTeX license, that required changing the
> name of any file that you modify.  I eventually concluded that LaTeX
> was free despite this requirement, but only because it has a remapping
> feature that lets you say "Use file myfoo.sty when the document asks
> for foo.sty".

We have come to basically exactly the same conclusion about these
cases.  The GFDL does not allow for this.

> Debian has a way of answering that question: but our way, which
> involves the DFSG, would say that "send $1 to the author for
> permission to make changes" is wrong for the same reasons that "send
> $1 to the author for permission to make copies", and is wrong for the
> same reason that we think that invariant sections are wrong.
> 
> The DFSG doesn't say anything about invariant sections; you're
> assuming a very strict interpretation.  You're also assuming that the
> DFSG should be applied to manuals as well as software, and that the
> interpretation should be the same.

The DFSG says that we must have the right to modify everything, at
least by the use of patch files.

Re: Unidentified subject!

[Richard Stallman]

  The principal argument in favor of the GFDL seems
to be "this is the only way we can get our message out".

The GNU Project's motive for using invariant sections is not the issue
here; that's a GNU Project decision, not a Debian decision.

The question at hand is whether Debian should accept or reject
GFDL-covered manuals.  The argument for that is that there are many
such manuals and they would be useful to include, and the DFSG can
be interpreted to accept it.

Re: Unidentified subject!

[Richard Stallman]

For example, I might use a manual by tearing it into pieces and using
the individual pages as confetti for a parade.  But I cannot copy
GFDL'd manuals and then do this.  

I congratulate you on your imagination--it never occurred to me to
think about this as a use of a manual.

As it happens, you are free to do that, because copyright does not
cover tearing up a manual.  You don't need a license to give you
permission to do that.

And then, in between the silly ones and the reasonable ones, there are
a whole lot more, with some pretty darn ambiguous cases.

Yes, there are gray areas where it is hard to decide.  I had to think
for months about whether the TeX license qualified as free, since it
makes the whole of the original TeX source code invariant.  And I had
to think for weeks about a LaTeX license, that required changing the
name of any file that you modify.  I eventually concluded that LaTeX
was free despite this requirement, but only because it has a remapping
feature that lets you say "Use file myfoo.sty when the document asks
for foo.sty".

My previous question is still the right one, I think.  How would you
go about explaining why "send $1 to the author for permission to make
changes to this program" is not a mere "requirement", but actually
kills freedom?

That question is straightforward: if you have to pay for permission to
do something, you do not have permission to do it.

Debian has a way of answering that question: but our way, which
involves the DFSG, would say that "send $1 to the author for
permission to make changes" is wrong for the same reasons that "send
$1 to the author for permission to make copies", and is wrong for the
same reason that we think that invariant sections are wrong.

The DFSG doesn't say anything about invariant sections; you're
assuming a very strict interpretation.  You're also assuming that the
DFSG should be applied to manuals as well as software, and that the
interpretation should be the same.

I'm arguing for a less strict interpretation of the DFSG.

Re: confetti (was: Unidentified subject!)

[Thomas Bushnell, BSG]

"Joe Moore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> Thomas Bushnell, BSG said:
> > For example, I might use a manual by tearing it into pieces and using
> > the individual pages as confetti for a parade.  But I cannot copy
> > GFDL'd manuals and then do this.
> 
> Why? because you're inhibiting the later recipient's ability to read them?

This is not about shredding into tiny bits, but about distributing
single pages.  (I chose the exact phrase "using the individual pages"
deliberately.)  Each page must come with the front cover texts, the
GFDL, and the complete text of any invariant sections.

Re: confetti (was: Unidentified subject!)

[Joe Moore]

Thomas Bushnell, BSG said:
> For example, I might use a manual by tearing it into pieces and using
> the individual pages as confetti for a parade.  But I cannot copy
> GFDL'd manuals and then do this.

Why? because you're inhibiting the later recipient's ability to read them?

Hmm..  within the terms of the GFDL, what's preventing you...

1. Depending on how big the bag of confetti is, you might fall under the
"copying in quantity", but since confetti normally doesn't have printed
covers, you're OK there.

2. The confetti is not a "Transparent form", so you must provide a
network-accessible location of a transparent form.

3. Make sure you update the History section with "Shredded by ".

4. The Invariant sections must not be shredded.  Repeat copies of invariant
sections may be shredded, but there must be at least one "unmodified"
invariant section in every bag of confetti.

5. You may not include any shredded "Endorsements" sections.

6. Make sure you don't have more than 50% of the confetti from any single
GFDL'd work, so that you can use the exceptions under "7. AGGREGATION WITH
INDEPENDENT WORKS".  (Just in case confetti "normally has printed covers"
under section 3)

--Joe

Re: Unidentified subject!

[Thomas Bushnell, BSG]

Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> Any free software or free documentation license that has nontrivial
> requirements can have results like this.  For instance, there are
> cases where people choose not to use a GPL-covered program because the
> GPL has requirements that they don't want to follow.  If you adopt the
> stance that any license condition that someone might be reluctant to
> follow is unacceptable, you'd have to reject most free software
> licenses.

Nobody has made that the stance.  You *seem* to be saying that any
"requirement" is ok, as long as you can still "use" the text.  But
"use" incorporates many things, and some of them you think are things
you want to support, and others you don't care about.

For example, I might use a manual by tearing it into pieces and using
the individual pages as confetti for a parade.  But I cannot copy
GFDL'd manuals and then do this.  

Now that's of course a silly example, but it demonstrates the point:
there are cases which are silly uses, and cases which are reasonable
uses, and you have decided that you want to preserve the freedom of
the reasonable uses and forget the silly ones.  

And then, in between the silly ones and the reasonable ones, there are
a whole lot more, with some pretty darn ambiguous cases.

What I have not seen is what you think is the right test to use for
whether a "requirement" has become a freedom-impinging *restriction*.  

My previous question is still the right one, I think.  How would you
go about explaining why "send $1 to the author for permission to make
changes to this program" is not a mere "requirement", but actually
kills freedom?  (Indeed, that even "send one cent for each hundred
copies" is a freedom-killing restriction!)

Debian has a way of answering that question: but our way, which
involves the DFSG, would say that "send $1 to the author for
permission to make changes" is wrong for the same reasons that "send
$1 to the author for permission to make copies", and is wrong for the
same reason that we think that invariant sections are wrong.

You are asking us to use a different way of determining the answer,
but I have not heard an explanation of what that different way would
actually look like.  The principal argument in favor of the GFDL seems
to be "this is the only way we can get our message out".  Debian has
been pretty successful at getting our message out, without needing
invariant sections, that we find this implausible.

Thomas

Unidentified subject!

[Richard Stallman]

Someone writing
the (GFDL) manual for the GF45 compiler might have invariant sections, 
but won't be willing to copy my rant into his work; better to rewrite
the section then annoy half the users. 

The fact that you're talking about a hypothetical example decades away
suggests that this is not a major issue.  But we can consider the
issue anyway.

The scenario shows directly that this is an inconvenience, not a real
lack of freedom.  The author of the GF45 compiler might prefer not to
use your regexp documentation, but he is free to use it, and using it
is feasible.

Any free software or free documentation license that has nontrivial
requirements can have results like this.  For instance, there are
cases where people choose not to use a GPL-covered program because the
GPL has requirements that they don't want to follow.  If you adopt the
stance that any license condition that someone might be reluctant to
follow is unacceptable, you'd have to reject most free software
licenses.

Unidentified subject!

[D. Starner]

> It adds some practical inconvenience, but practically speaking the
> magnitude is not great, so there's no reason not to do it.

Let's say I write a (GPL) compiler for Perl 2045, and someone writing a
(GPL) sample implemenation of Fortran 2045 wants to borrow my regex code. 
They can do so; the only thing stopping them will be technical problems.

Let's say I write a (GFDL) manual for Perl 2045, and include in there
an invariant section about the true gods and how mankind turning away
from them have brought disaster on his head. Someone writing the (GFDL)
standard for Fortran 2045 can't borrow the section about regexes; extended
off-topic sections just aren't appropriate for a standard. Someone writing
the (GFDL) manual for the GF45 compiler might have invariant sections, 
but won't be willing to copy my rant into his work; better to rewrite
the section then annoy half the users. So the invariant sections have made
politics an issue and added serious non-technical problems, even to someone
using the same license.

As a Debian developer, I won't ever support that forces me to support the 
politics of previous developers or people I want to borrow documention from.
(As a Debian maintainer, I see no need to go around removing those sections,
but as a occasional upstream, I find it important to be able to remove them
or relegate them to a supplementary directory.) 

-- 
__
Sign-up for your own personalized E-mail at Mail.com
http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup

CareerBuilder.com has over 400,000 jobs. Be smarter about your job search
http://corp.mail.com/careers

Unidentified subject!

[tinelli]

Title: auguri



 
 
 

  
  






  



  




  


  

  


  Happy Easter From 
  Revue Agency Sales
  Joyeuse Paques du 
  Magazine Agents commercials
  Frohe Ostern von 
  Jurnal  Andelsvertreter
  Auguri A te 
  Agente e Rappresentante di Commercio E alla tua famiglia 
  Uffici stampa, 
  Redazioni e Jobs Center 
  ASSOAGENTI ASSOCIAZIONE 
  AGENTI RAPPRESENTANTI
  via Vitruvio n° 43 20124 
  MILANO ITALY 
  

Unidentified subject!

[Mark Rafn]

On 7 Oct 2002, Ali Akcaagac wrote:

> On Mon, 2002-10-07 at 14:07, Fredrik Persson wrote:
> well i don't have any problems releasing the sourcecode. thats not what
> i am concerned of.

Yes, but releasing the sourcecode is not what makes free software.  
Really, it comes down to people's ability to do things that you don't like 
with the software.

If I can't fork the program without your permission, it's not free.  It's 
clearly your right to choose this, but it won't go in Debian, and 
depending on what license you DO choose, you won't get some other benefits 
of free software (people will be less likely to send patches, it will get 
less-wide distribution, you won't be giving as much to the community).

> i only search for a suitable license NOW to protect
> myself for the future. it's better to search NOW for a correct solution
> than having to deal with the consequencies afterwards.

Absolutely.  I'd urge you to consider that making the software free is the 
correct solution, and the GPL is a good license for that.  If that's not 
correct for you, you'll have to define exactly what freedoms you want to 
allow and what you want to restrict.

> why not ? i mean i don't like GNU/GPL much because it is too free.
> allowing everyone to do whatever they like.

"Too free" is always a worrisome phrase.  Be specific which freedoms you 
want to restrict from your software and we'll see if it's still free 
enough to fit one of the other free licenses.

Be aware, though, that most free licenses are less restrictive than the 
GPL, not more.

> http://opensource.org is full of
> different OSI aproved licenses. not necessarily GNU/GPL. at the very
> final end its the users problem if he/she wants to use the software or
> not.

Agreed.  You'd be hard-pressed to find any of them that don't allow a 
program to be forked, though.  It's one of the basic premises of free 
software.

> i only want to make sure he/she is able to get the source and
> compile it.

You don't need a free license for that.  There are a lot of non-free
no-charge licenses you can choose as well.

> yeah but i am not linus torvalds. personally i see the kernel situation
> losing it's focus and bounds. everyone is forking its own kernel now and
> at the very end we deal with 10 derivates of it which none of them is
> really perfect.

As opposed to one which is an arbitrary compromise between some subset of
the imperfect patches?  I know which world I prefer.

In the end, I choose free software over non-free, when both are available, 
and I believe that freedom has innate strengths that simply lead to better 
programs.  I hope you come to the same conclusion, but if not, I wish you 
the best regardless.
--
Mark Rafn[EMAIL PROTECTED]  

Unidentified subject!

[Ignacio García Fernández]

>From ignacio  Fri Sep  6 11:56:41 2002
Return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Envelope-to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Delivery-date: Fri, 06 Sep 2002 11:56:41 +0200
Received: from shannon
([147.156.161.144] helo=localhost ident=ignacio)
by shannon with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian))
id 17nFqz-0006XJ-00
for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Fri, 06 Sep 2002 11:56:41 +0200
X-Sieve: cmu-sieve 2.0
Received: from sello.ci.uv.es [147.156.1.112]
by localhost with IMAP (fetchmail-5.9.11)
for [EMAIL PROTECTED] (single-drop); Fri, 06 Sep 2002 11:56:41 +0200 
(CEST)
Received: from idolo.uv.es (idolo.ci.uv.es [147.156.1.38])
by sello.uv.es (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g869swdY016227
for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Fri, 6 Sep 2002 11:54:58 +0200
Received: from murphy.debian.org (murphy.debian.org [65.125.64.134])
by idolo.uv.es (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA08857
for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Fri, 6 Sep 2002 11:54:58 +0200 (METDST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by murphy.debian.org (Postfix) with QMQP
id 45EFD1F6CC; Fri,  6 Sep 2002 04:54:47 -0500 (CDT)
Old-Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: from sello.uv.es (sello.ci.uv.es [147.156.1.112])
by murphy.debian.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 517DE1F3EA
for ; Fri,  6 Sep 2002 04:54:37 
-0500 (CDT)
Received: from shannon (shannon.irobot.uv.es [147.156.161.144])
by sello.uv.es (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g869sXdY016191;
Fri, 6 Sep 2002 11:54:34 +0200
Received: from ignacio by shannon with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian))
id 17nFqY-0006X3-00; Fri, 06 Sep 2002 11:56:14 +0200
Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2002 11:56:14 +0200
From: Ignacio =?iso-8859-1?Q?Garc=EDa_Fern=E1ndez?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Lista de usuarios de debian ,
   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Debian registered by a trade as TM in Spain!
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Mail-Followup-To: Ignacio =?iso-8859-1?Q?Garc=EDa_Fern=E1ndez?= <[EMAIL 
PROTECTED]>,
Lista de usuarios de debian ,
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i
Organization: Instituto de =?iso-8859-1?Q?Rob=F3tic?=
=?iso-8859-1?Q?a?= (Universidad de Valencia)
Sender: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Ignacio_Garc=EDa_Fern=E1ndez?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.1 required=5.0 tests=IN_REP_TO,PLING,NO_MX_FOR_FROM 
version=2.20
X-Spam-Level: 
Resent-Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Resent-From: debian-user-spanish@lists.debian.org
X-Mailing-List:  archive/latest/48429
X-Loop: debian-user-spanish@lists.debian.org
List-Post: 
List-Help: 
List-Subscribe: 
List-Unsubscribe: 
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Resent-Date: Fri,  6 Sep 2002 04:54:47 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Bcc:
Resent-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Resent-Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2002 12:28:05 +0200
Resent-To: debian-legal@lists.debian.org

It seems there have been some news. As it has been announced in deb-usr-sp,
I'll do a summary here. I also include the full text in spanish. I've
annotated the tranlatoin with brackets '[' ']'.

In barrapunto it has appered a note that is suposed to be from CEINTEC, the
company that was said to have registered Debian.

Please, if anyone sees any mistake in the translation or doesn't understand
a word, forgive me, and don't doubt to ask :) My English is not very good.

The note says:

«About the comment published in bp.com on sep-3 2002, CEINTEC wants to point
out that:

[...]

Ceintec did not register the TM Debian.

[...]

Debian was registered  by a person related to CENITEC, by him or herself
[not in the name of CEINTEC] on September of 2000, when he/she noticed that
some oother names related to Free Soft were being registered by other
trades.

We [CEINTEC] know that the intention of that person was to protect the mark
Debian precisely to avoid others to register it and forbide its use by
others (including CEINTEC).

We [CEINTEC] know that this person has never oposed to the use of Debian
and, of course, that person guarantees that this won't happen in the future
(while the GNU philosophy is respected).

We [CEINTEC] also know that he/she would give it (now and before) to any
Government Institution that guarantees that the whole community can use it
freely and that promisses to renew and defend while the distribution
[Debian, I understand] exists.

[...]»


 «Respecto al comentario publicado en barrapunto.com el 3/9/02 CEINTEC
quiere realizar las siguientes puntualizaciones:

Que Ceintec ha defendido y apostado por Linux y el software libre desde
1995. Como se puede comprobar en su Web http://www.ceintec.com

Que ha implementado Linux en sus programas de formación cuando nadie hablaba
de Linux y muy pocos lo defendían.

Que Ceintec no registró la marca De

Unidentified subject!

[Mohd Nazri]

Unidentified subject!

[John Udeh]

  
  MR. JOHN UDEH
  
   Tel: 234-
80 - 33185767
  
  Fax: 234-1- 7599446
  
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]



  31TH JULY, 2002
Dear Sir,
 
EXTREMELY BUSINESS TRANSACTION
RE: REMITTANCE OF US$50,500,000 MILLION INTO PRIVATE/COMPANY ACCOUNT .

We are compelled to contact you on this business proposal which will
certainly boost our financial stands when concluded.

We are top Federal Government officials with the Nigeria National
Petroleum Corporation (NNPC) and also members of the 
contract review committee responsible for the award of all Federal
Government Contracts .
In collaboration with my colleagues, we propose to remit the sum of
US$50,500,000 Million (Fifty Million five hundred 
thousand US Dollars) into a reliable foreign account and later invest some
part of this funds into a lucrative business in your 
country. 

SOURCE OF THE FUND

This amount was derived from over invoiced contract value on various
contracts awarded by the Nigerian National 
Petroleum Corporation (NNPC) to foreign contractors which have been
successfully executed and the original contractors 
duly paid.

This over inflated amount is now in suspense account of the Nigerian
National Petroleum Corporation (NNPC) awaiting for 
proper documentation for remittance into a reliable foreign bank account,
We have unanimously agreed to allocate you 
15% of this fund for providing the foreign bank where this fund will be
remitted.

Equally, we have set aside 10% for local and international expenses, while
75% is for us and 15% for you. You should 
indicate your interest in assisting us to achieve this great objective to
enable us put payment claims in other to effect 
remittance of the fund into your account , You should send urgently the
following to the above number:

A.  Account Name/Address, Fax/Phone Number of your Bank , Your account
number.
B.  Your private Fax/Telephone Respectively.

On the receipt of these vital requirements from you, We shall quickly
contact the concerned Federal Government  
Agencies for speedy approvals of the payment .This transaction is very
urgent and sensitive . In view of this fact, we have 
decided that it will last for (14) working days from the receipt of the
above named requirements. 

We shall use a greater part of our share for investment in your country as
to be directed by you. You are assured of a hitch 
free transaction as we solicit for your adequate assistance. Honest and
maximum cooperation . You should maintain strict 
confidentiality of this business.

We look forward to receiving your positive response through the Fax number
above .

Thanks,

MR. JOHN UDEH.

Unidentified subject!

[David Carlisle]

> 
> The teTeX distribution is free software; you can redistribute it
> and/or modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as
> published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the
> License, or (at your option) any later version.
> 
> On Debian GNU/Linux systems, the complete text of the GNU General Public
> License may be found in /usr/share/common-licenses/GPL
> 
> The individual parts of this distribution often have their own
> copyright. Please look into the respective files for their copyright.


That covers the tetex distribution  packaging files and "wrapper"
scripts etc. But not the files that are so packaged. tetex includes
verbatim copies of 

tex
the computer modern fonts
latex

Each of those components has a name-if-change distribution condition.

David Carlisle

_
This message has been checked for all known viruses by Star Internet
delivered through the MessageLabs Virus Scanning Service. For further
information visit http://www.star.net.uk/stats.asp or alternatively call
Star Internet for details on the Virus Scanning Service.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Unidentified subject!

[Jeff Licquia]

On Tue, 2002-07-16 at 17:26, Boris Veytsman wrote:
> Then they obviously should remove texinfo and all FSF info system as
> well, since it is TeX-based.
> 
> A sad situation of ignorance: Debian people do not realize that they
> ALREADY use TeX with its LPPL-like reservation of the name TeX.  They
> use it in such a way that divorcing from TeX is not posssible.

>From /usr/share/doc/tetex-base/copyright:

-
The teTeX distribution is free software; you can redistribute it
and/or modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as
published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the
License, or (at your option) any later version.

On Debian GNU/Linux systems, the complete text of the GNU General Public
License may be found in /usr/share/common-licenses/GPL

The individual parts of this distribution often have their own
copyright. Please look into the respective files for their copyright.

seminar and koma-script have changed their licence recently but there
are still files that refer to the old copyright. Both are copyrighted
under the LPPL (LaTeX Project Public License) now. You can find the LPPL
in /usr/share/doc/tetex-base/lppl.txt.gz

--

tetex-nonfree is (as the name says) not freely distributable. Please
look into the individual files for the copyrights.
-

>From /usr/share/doc/texinfo/copyright:

-
  This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
  it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
  the Free Software Foundation; either version 2, or (at your option)
  any later version.
-

>From /usr/share/doc/info/copyright:

-
  This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
  it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
  the Free Software Foundation; either version 2, or (at your option)
  any later version.
-

I fail to see the problem.  Could you point it out for us?



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Unidentified subject!

[Boris Veytsman]

> Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 22:59:13 +0100
> From: David Carlisle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

> 
> if that were the case you would presumably remove TeX and the TeX
> fonts from Debian as well.  In that case the licence on LaTeX would
> be moot as without TeX you can't use LaTeX whatever the licence.
> 


Then they obviously should remove texinfo and all FSF info system as
well, since it is TeX-based.

A sad situation of ignorance: Debian people do not realize that they
ALREADY use TeX with its LPPL-like reservation of the name TeX.  They
use it in such a way that divorcing from TeX is not posssible.

-- 
Good luck

-Boris

The real trouble with reality is that there's no background music.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Unidentified subject!

[Deedra Waters]

unsubscribe

Re: Unidentified subject!

[Branden Robinson]

On Fri, Aug 24, 2001 at 05:42:16PM -0500, Colin Watson wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 24, 2001 at 08:36:16AM +, Jeff Prescot wrote:
> > So, I verified myself and, do you know what, I have discovered that
> > each mail that we post to debian-legal, for example, is also posted
> > by Debian to the Usenet News! We did not post to the News, did we?
> > It is Debian that posted it!
> 
> Bored now. Actually, it isn't.

Bwa ha ha, I was wrong.  He's interning for Sergio Brandano!

I missed some choice stuff from this twit.  Maybe I should check the
list archives.

-- 
G. Branden Robinson| If God had intended for man to go
Debian GNU/Linux   | about naked, we would have been
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | born that way.
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |


pgpTa3RcAtvwN.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Unidentified subject!

[Colin Watson]

On Fri, Aug 24, 2001 at 08:36:16AM +, Jeff Prescot wrote:
> Marcelo Magallon wrote:
> >It should be emphasized that this is something *newsreaders* use. What
> >the author says using this header is that he doesn't want email copies
> >of Usenet posts, which is similar but not the same as mailing lists.
> 
> So, I verified myself and, do you know what, I have discovered that
> each mail that we post to debian-legal, for example, is also posted
> by Debian to the Usenet News! We did not post to the News, did we?
> It is Debian that posted it!

Bored now. Actually, it isn't.

-- 
Colin Watson  [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Unidentified subject!

[Jeff Prescot]

Raul Miller wrote:


You either have something interesting to say, or YOU are off-topic.



http://lists.debian.org/misc.html says about debian-legal
"Copyright, licensing and patent issues".
It doesn't explicitly say "relevant to Debian activities."
Do we need to change this?


My "something interesting" was referred to the topic of this list/thread.


Raul Miller wrote:


Most of Jeff Prescot's letter was off-topic for this mailing list.


So, I was trying to have a conversation on the DMCA and WCT, which
is respectively US copyright law and the international copyright
treaty. Now, explain me, why is my letter "off topic"? The WCT
is not merely concerned with protection against hakers, and the
DMCA ought to enforce the WCT and the Berne convention in full.


Steve Greenland wrote:


I think you will find that "the Debian community" is actually a
very strong supporter of copyright; that's why we have the DFSG,
and are extremely careful about evaluating the licenses of what we
distribute. There's lots of bitching about restrictive licenses, but
that's because we *do* respect copyright, if we didn't we'd distribute
the stuff regardless of license. What we (in the US, anyway) object
to is the paid enactment of laws designed to protect the financial
interests of large corporations, which is what the DMCA is all about.


OK, lets change topic then. Let's focus on mail headers. In his mail,
Marcelo Magallon wrote:


Mail-Copies-To: header is "never", not "nobody"



It should be emphasized that this is something *newsreaders* use. What
the author says using this header is that he doesn't want email copies
of Usenet posts, which is similar but not the same as mailing lists.


So, I verified myself and, do you know what, I have discovered that
each mail that we post to debian-legal, for example, is also posted
by Debian to the Usenet News! We did not post to the News, did we?
It is Debian that posted it! This accounts for a violation of the
DMCA, also because not every outhor is posting from the USA,
and the punishment for it is a 1M dollars fine, and the seclusion
for 5 years. In other words, each one of us, who has posted to this
list, by law, should now reveive a compensation of 1M dollars, and
the managers of Debian lists ought to go to jail. We are not "large
corporations" nor we have "finantial interests" when posting here,
but still the DMCA has its say. Whether this is also good or bad,
it is not up to me to say, but is certainly something that this
list should discuss.


-- Jeff

_
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

Unidentified subject!

[Walter Landry]

All right, this is getting silly.  I just talked to my brother who got
a letter to the editor published in the Economist.  He didn't sign a
single thing, and there are no disclaimers.  The Economist is based in
England, but it has offices in many countries.  That subjects them to
almost every conceivable jurisdiction, and they still don't seem to
worry about it.  They archive everything.  They charge for it.  They
even edited the letter!!!

My vote is to change nothing.  If the Economist, who has far more
money to worry about these things than we do, doesn't worry, neither
should debian.

Regards,
Walter Landry
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Unidentified subject!

[skdjfh]

Unidentified subject!

[Denis Kosygin]

unsubscribe [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Unidentified subject!

[Samuel Womble]

unsubscribe





Eminem? Dr. Dre?  --> http://www.eminem2000.com http://www.eminemboard.com
? D-12?  --> http://www.d12world.com

Unidentified subject!

[Samuel Womble]

unsubscribe




Eminem? Dr. Dre?  --> http://www.eminem2000.com http://www.eminemboard.com
? D-12?  --> http://www.d12world.com

Unidentified subject!

[andreas . franzen]

Hi,

the package rtlinux contains RTLinux. This is a real-time layer below the
Linux kernel to provide a Linux operating system with real-time capabilities.

In the documentation of version 3.0 of RTLinux a patent is mentioned
(US Patent No. 5,995,745). This patent covers the underlying principle of
RTLinux.

Thus, the use of RTLinux has legal restrictions, and RTLinux must be removed
from Debian.

Andreas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Unidentified subject!

[TAIYO]

July 30, 2000

FROM: PANDA INDUSTRIES, HAJI PURA, SIALKOT -PAKISTAN

Phone: Office:  0432-582384
Factory: 0432-256667
Fax: 0432-263777
E mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]


Dear President,

Re:
Footbags - filled with sand or plastic beeds

As our introduction, it is informed that we are manufacturers and
exporters of
footbags - filled with plastic beeds.

PRICES: As under:-

C&F
US$ p/pcC&F US$ p/pc
PANNELS BY
AIR  BY COURIER
02  0.700.78
04  0.800.88
08  0.900.98
12  0.900.98
14  0.941.02
26  1.131.21
32  1.191.27
42  1.421.50
50  1.521.60
62  1.671.75
92  2.052.13

SIZE: 2-1/4 inch.

WEIGHT: 30 to 35 grams per ball.

Kindly confirm if the above prices suit you. If so, then please advise so
that I 
may arrange to send you samples. 

Waiting with interest to listen from you.

B RGDS
Shahid Bilal Akram
Partner

Unidentified subject!

[TAIYO]

July 30, 2000

FROM: PANDA INDUSTRIES, HAJI PURA, SIALKOT -PAKISTAN

Phone: Office:  0432-582384
Factory: 0432-256667
Fax: 0432-263777
E mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]


Dear President,

Re:
Footbags - filled with sand or plastic beeds

As our introduction, it is informed that we are manufacturers and
exporters of
footbags - filled with plastic beeds.

PRICES: As under:-

C&F
US$ p/pcC&F US$ p/pc
PANNELS BY
AIR  BY COURIER
02  0.700.78
04  0.800.88
08  0.900.98
12  0.900.98
14  0.941.02
26  1.131.21
32  1.191.27
42  1.421.50
50  1.521.60
62  1.671.75
92  2.052.13

SIZE: 2-1/4 inch.

WEIGHT: 30 to 35 grams per ball.

Kindly confirm if the above prices suit you. If so, then please advise so
that I 
may arrange to send you samples. 

Waiting with interest to listen from you.

B RGDS
Shahid Bilal Akram
Partner







-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Unidentified subject!

[maor]

0subscribe

Unidentified subject!

[maor]

0subscribe

Unidentified subject!

[Chanop Silpa-Anan]

debian-legal
Bcc: 
Subject: Re: Copyproblem on some fonts I intend to package
Reply-To: 
In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; from [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Sun, Feb 06, 2000 
at 03:15:53PM +
Organization: Linux
X-URL: http://kenji.anu.edu.au/~chanop/
X-OS: Linux 2.2.14 i686


If one font has this copyright in the font file,

 Copyright (c) 1997 Phaisarn Systems, Inc.

,and the other one has no copyright about who made it but there exited copy of
program creating it,

 %Created with FontMonger Copyright (c) 1991-2 Ares Software Corp. All rights
 reserved.

 /Notice (Typeface (c) The Monotype Corporation plc. Data (c) The Monotype
 Corporation plc/Type Solutions Inc. 1990-1992. All Rights Reserved) readonly 
def


How should these copyright be interpreted?


Chanop

-- 
-BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-
Version: 3.12
GE d? s+: a- C++ UL++ P+ L+++ E- W++ N++ o-- K- w---
O- M+ V-- PS PE++ Y PGP++ t+ 5++ X+ R tv+++ b++ DI+ D-
G e+++ h* r+ y+
--END GEEK CODE BLOCK--

Unidentified subject!

[Anonymous]

Hi all,

There is a multicol.sty new license (from the
tools package of LaTeX).

It's LaTeX license + some moral.

It probably raises questions that few of us can 
properly answer both from the legal and 
philosophical point of view, but it "tastes" like
"free".

Let's hope this will not disqualify it to be free 
in the debian sense.
--

Unidentified subject!

[Dale James Thompson]

OK,

I have written the author of postilion, Nic Bernstein, and in his reply he 
shared with me the reasons that the new copyright was added to the graphics 
files included with postilion.

The artist of said graphics is concerned that they might be used in "just any 
program". But, Nic is willing to look into changing the wording of the 
copyright if an agreement can be reached that makes everyone happy.

Can someone who has some experience with this kind of discussion help me in 
this? I need some help in explaining exactly why (with references) debian 
might or might not have a problem with the new copyright applied to the 
postilion graphics.

I am including the reply as to make all aware of the current state of 
discussion.

> On  6 Feb, Dale James Thompson wrote:
> > A problem exists with me making a debian package for postilion. The new 
> > copyright for the graphics files is not compatible with the Debian Free 
> > Software Guidelines. This means that the postilion package will need to be 
> > taken out of the Main Debian Distribution and placed in a non-free 
> > distribution that is not shipped on the CDROM's. The only way I will be 
> > able 
> > to fix this is if the copyright for the graphics files is changed to be 
> > less 
> > restrictive.
> 
> For completeness, this is the text in question (from COPYRIGHT.images
> in the Postilion-0.9.0 distribution)
>All graphics, image and icon files icluded with Postilion are copyright
>1998, 1999 by Marco van Hylckama Vlieg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>.
> 
>These graphics may be freely distributed and modified but ONLY
>_WITH_ this program (Postilion).
> 
> This particular copyright notice was added late in the development
> phase for this release of Postilion, at the request of the graphics
> designer, and with only brief consideration as to wording.  I will
> forward your concerns to Marco, and see if we can come to some agreement
> which makes everyone happy.
> 
> I am curious just what the nature of the complaint is.  I am not
> familiar with each and every "open source" guideline, and I do not
> intend to become expert in these.
> 
> Marco was concerned that the images which he created for Postilion not
> be torn from the package to be used in just any program.  He felt that
> he had worked hard to create a group of icons which gave Postilion its
> own feel, and that he would be upset to see these images combined with
> other images, or used in another program, without his consent.  He has
> given his consent for these images to be used in at least one other
> program, after I encouraged their use.
> 
> > I want to also let you know that at least one debian developer who is using 
> > postilion intends to stop doing so until the program once again becomes 
> > completely free. I am also upset because I have been happily using 
> > postilion 
> > for more than a year now and consider it the only truly good free mail 
> > reader. 
> > But now the program is not free.
> 
> I am sorry to lose any users, but if your feelings are that strong
> about this, I can understand.  As I have said above, let us see if we
> can come up with some wording which can make everyone happy.  Maybe
> some discussion between all involved can lead us to a better
> understanding.
>  
> > I also want to let you know that there is some doubt as to if the new 
> > graphics 
> > copyright and the GPL are compatible. It may not be possible to include the 
> > graphics files in a GPL'd package such as postilion. Much the same as the 
> > KDE/QT troubles until the QT copyright was changed.
> 
> I am not clear on this.  I would assume that you are referring to
> section 2.0:
>2. You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion
>of it, thus forming a work based on the Program, and copy and
>distribute such modifications or work under the terms of Section 1
>above, provided that you also meet all of these conditions:
> 
> There would appear to be a contradiction between section 2.0, and the
> above COPYRIGHT.images statement, although I am not sure.  I have never
> really understood just how graphics files, which are free standing
> components, are covered by the GPL.  Further down in section 2.0, we
> find this:
>These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole.  If
>identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program,
>and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in
>themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those
>sections when you distribute them as separate works.  But when you
>distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based
>on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of
>this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the
>entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote it.
> 
> This would seem to imply that there may be different copyright
> statements for di