Re: Why Debian's webpages aren't DFGS-free ?

[Per Lundberg]

> "JH" == Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

JH> You've never looked at the debian web site source. Large
JH> quantities of source code are included.

Okay. If that's the case, I agree we should have a more free license.

Re: Why Debian's webpages aren't DFGS-free ?

[Craig Small]

Joey Hess said:
> > I guess the main questions are:
> > 1) What should the license be?
> 
> You might want to check the archive, I did think we had discussed this
> before and came to some sort of agreement. Unfortunatly, I'm not in a
> position to check this week.

Some of you discussed this before in private emails.  As far as I can
see from the archives both debian-legal and debian-www have some parts
of the discussion but you can see large gaps in it.  One of the emails
(from Jay) even says please CC it to the webmasters because we are
missing chunks of it.

For example, I can see stuff like 'yeah that's ok but change the fourth
paragraph to this '. Which doesn't make any sense if you don't have
the original email.

> > 2) Who needs to "bless" it?
> Legally, just SPI, since most pages on the web site assign copyright to them
> via the foooter #include.
Great.  We'll get something together then email SPI with the new license
for their ok.

  - Craig

-- 
Craig Small VK2XLZ, PGP: AD 8D D8 63 6E BF C3 C7  47 41 B1 A2 1F 46 EC 90
Eye-Net Consulting http://www.eye-net.com.au/ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
MIEEE <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  Debian developer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Re: Why Debian's webpages aren't DFGS-free ?

[Joey Hess]

Per Lundberg wrote:
> > "TW" == Tomasz Wegrzanowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 
> >> That's not what I said. They are art. Art doesn't have "source
> >> code" in the same way as software.
> TW> Perl programs doesn't have source code either.
> 
> Yes they have. There are even Perl compilers.
> 
> TW> And web pages have source code : HTML.
> 
> HTML is not the source code. If you generate the HTML pages from SGML
> input, that's source code.

The web pages are genenerated from large bodies of wml, which is a mixture
of html and perl.

[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/debian/webwml/english/template/debian>grep \\$ 
languages.wml 
[TR:Bu sayfa a$aGdaki dillerde de mevcuttur:]
  my $str = "";
  $base_url = "$(HOME)";
  $file = "$(WML_SRC_BASENAME)";
  $cur_lang = "$(CUR_LANG)";
  $cwd = `pwd`;
  $full_base_url = &canonpath("$cwd/$base_url");
  $rel_dir = &relpath($full_base_url, $cwd);
  chop $rel_dir; chop $rel_dir;
  # printf STDERR "base=$base_url rel_dir=$rel_dir file=$file 
cur_lang=$cur_lang\n";
 # printf STDERR "$base_url/../$_/$rel_dir/$file.wml\n";
 if ( -f "$base_url/../$_/$rel_dir/$file.wml" ) {
if ($_ ne lc($cur_lang) or $cur_lang eq "Chinese") {
   push @used_langs, $_;
   # printf STDERR "found file in $_\n";
 $str = "\n:\n";
$sorted_langs{$trans{$langs{$_}}{$_}} = $_;
$cur_lang = $sorted_langs{$_};
if ($cur_lang ne "chinese") {
   $str .= "$_ \n";
   $str .= "$_ (GB) \n";
   $str .= "$_ (Big5) \n";
 $str .= "\n\n";
  return $str;

This is a part of the source to the debian website, which it is currently
illegal for you to modify.

-- 
see shy jo, in New York

Re: Why Debian's webpages aren't DFGS-free ?

[Joey Hess]

Per Lundberg wrote:
> > "TW" == Tomasz Wegrzanowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 
> >>  Yes. Even RMS thinks there's a difference between art (poetry,
> >> books and IMO web pages) and software.
> TW> Web pages are not poetry.
> 
> That's not what I said. They are art. Art doesn't have "source code"
> in the same way as software.

You've never looked at the debian web site source. Large quantities of
source code are included.

-- 
see shy jo, in New York

Re: Why Debian's webpages aren't DFGS-free ?

[Joey Hess]

Craig Small wrote:
> OK, if it's all right by everyone I'll get something going so that the
> web pages are DFSG compliant.  This doesn't mean I make the decision all
> by myself or do all the work, but I can act as a central point and make
> sure this does happen.

Ok, great. Thanks!

> I guess the main questions are:
> 1) What should the license be?

You might want to check the archive, I did think we had discussed this
before and came to some sort of agreement. Unfortunatly, I'm not in a
position to check this week.

> 2) Who needs to "bless" it?

Legally, just SPI, since most pages on the web site assign copyright to them
via the foooter #include.

-- 
see shy jo, in New York

Re: Why Debian's webpages aren't DFGS-free ?

[Joey Hess]

Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> I also don't entirely see how content falls under the social contract..
> That 'S' in DFSG stands for software after all!

Well, if you don't think the web site includes softtware, think again.

However, in the more general sense, some of us belive that free
documentation is just as important as free software. It's not all of debian,
but there's certianly a sizable contingent.

> AFAIK the reason content licenses are like this is primarily to prevent
> people from changing the content without changing the attribution (ie,
> would you like it if someone added a nasty paragraph to DWN and got it
> posted to /. with your name on it!?)

In case you aren't aware, the DFSG allows clauses that prevent this by
requiring the authors name be removed and/or that the name of the document
be changed.

-- 
see shy jo, in New York

Re: Why Debian's webpages aren't DFGS-free ?

[Joey Hess]

Joey Hess wrote:
> > AFAIK the reason content licenses are like this is primarily to prevent
> > people from changing the content without changing the attribution (ie,
> > would you like it if someone added a nasty paragraph to DWN and got it
> > posted to /. with your name on it!?)
> 
> In case you aren't aware, the DFSG allows clauses that prevent this by
> requiring the authors name be removed and/or that the name of the document
> be changed.

Oh, I meant to add that in situations like that, lawsuits can be satisfying
(I guess), but what you really have to do is get the record corrrected
quickly, and legal mumbo-jumo in a license won't help much.

-- 
see shy jo, in New York

Re: Why Debian's webpages aren't DFGS-free ?

[Joey Hess]

Anthony Towns wrote:
> The counter-argument is to prevent people ripping off our work, or
> something.  For example, some unscrupulous dot-com could take all the
> Debian stuff, setup www.debian.foo.xy in their country, and confuse
> newbies into thinking that they're the official site. And everyone knows
> that Debian would do *anything* to avoid confusing newbies, so this is
> a completely unacceptable situation.

As you should well know, we would be well within the bounds of the DFSG to
write a license that prohitied modifying the web pages and then claiming
they were the debian web site.

-- 
see shy jo, in New York

Re: Why Debian's webpages aren't DFGS-free ?

[Joey Hess]

Anthony Towns wrote:
> The counter-argument is to prevent people ripping off our work, or
> something.  For example, some unscrupulous dot-com could take all the
> Debian stuff, setup www.debian.foo.xy in their country, and confuse
> newbies into thinking that they're the official site. And everyone knows
> that Debian would do *anything* to avoid confusing newbies, so this is
> a completely unacceptable situation.

I also just realzed how completly similar this is to the type of FUD you'll
hear from traditional software companies about the idea of open source
software in general. Wake up, you have a dual standard.


-- 
see shy jo, in New York

Re: Why Debian's webpages aren't DFGS-free ?

[Joey Hess]

Gosh, I hate to follow up to this post 3 times, but I keep thinking of more
to say.

Anthony Towns wrote:
> The problem with this is that most people aren't working from a
> "intellectual property isn't" perspective. Debian's webpages are Debian's,
> why should anyone else get any access to them? Sure, viewing them is a
> good idea, but why should they be redistributable? Well, I guess mirrors
> are okay. But what about modifiable? Well, translations count, but that's
> pretty limited modification. Why should we allow more?

Ok, a hypothetical situation: A distribution is made based on debian and
they would like to copy the portions of the web site that pertain to
installation, and modify them to meet their changes. 

Despite the Corel SNAFU, Debian has historically had an interest in allowing
for derived distributions.

> Arguing that anything else is hypocritical kinda misses the point. We're
> about distributing an operating system, programs, stuff like that. Web
> pages are completely ancillary, and they're already good enough.

And documentation is ancillary too? I think _not_!

-- 
see shy jo, in New York

Re: Why Debian's webpages aren't DFGS-free ?

[Jason Gunthorpe]

On Wed, 2 Feb 2000, Joey Hess wrote:

> James A. Treacy wrote:
> > I don't care about this issue (got too many things going on at once). Come 
> > to
> > a consensus about what to do and someone do it.
> 
> Well I hope _someone_ gives a damn about little things like our social
> contract!

Well, it seems to me the only thing needed is a clause allowing
modifiction once certain conditions are met (kinda like the TeX license). 

I also don't entirely see how content falls under the social contract..
That 'S' in DFSG stands for software after all!

AFAIK the reason content licenses are like this is primarily to prevent
people from changing the content without changing the attribution (ie,
would you like it if someone added a nasty paragraph to DWN and got it
posted to /. with your name on it!?)

What ever became of those opencontent people? They were out to solve
things like this.

Jason

Re: Why Debian's webpages aren't DFGS-free ?

[Craig Small]

James A. Treacy said:
> On Wed, Feb 02, 2000 at 09:09:39AM -0800, Joey Hess wrote:
> > James A. Treacy wrote:
> > > I don't care about this issue (got too many things going on at once). 
> > > Come to
> > > a consensus about what to do and someone do it.
> > 
> > Well I hope _someone_ gives a damn about little things like our social
> > contract!
> > 
> People need to remember that the web content is the responsibility of
> everyone. Most of the people on this list (including you, Joey) have
> CVS access.  If you see a small problem, fix it. If you see a bigger
> problem, discuss it on debian-www and then fix it.
> 
> I apologize for being a bit rude, but I can't maintain the web pages
> by myself.
OK, if it's all right by everyone I'll get something going so that the
web pages are DFSG compliant.  This doesn't mean I make the decision all
by myself or do all the work, but I can act as a central point and make
sure this does happen.

I'll use the email list debian-www for discussion.  We'll come up with
something then I'll commit the changes to the CVS (After talking to Jay
about the best time to do a total rebuild).

If everyone is ok by this, don't bother Jay anymore about it, bother me.
Of course he can contribute.  I'll give it a day or so to allow for
timezones and if noone screams then I'll assume it's a task for me.

I guess the main questions are:
1) What should the license be?
2) Who needs to "bless" it?

  - Craig
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] spamreader :(

-- 
Craig Small VK2XLZ, PGP: AD 8D D8 63 6E BF C3 C7  47 41 B1 A2 1F 46 EC 90
Eye-Net Consulting http://www.eye-net.com.au/ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
MIEEE <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  Debian developer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Re: Why Debian's webpages aren't DFGS-free ?

[Terry Dawson]

Anthony Towns wrote:

> The problem with this is that most people aren't working from a
> "intellectual property isn't" perspective. Debian's webpages are Debian's,
> why should anyone else get any access to them? Sure, viewing them is a
> good idea, but why should they be redistributable? Well, I guess mirrors
> are okay. But what about modifiable? Well, translations count, but that's
> pretty limited modification. Why should we allow more?

For precisely the same reasons we allow more freedoms for the software
itself.

> The counter-argument is to prevent people ripping off our work, or
> something.  For example, some unscrupulous dot-com could take all the
> Debian stuff, setup www.debian.foo.xy in their country, and confuse
> newbies into thinking that they're the official site. And everyone knows
> that Debian would do *anything* to avoid confusing newbies, so this is
> a completely unacceptable situation.

This issue, the one of preserving identity, is just as real for the
software.
The DFSG allows licenses that prevent derivative works being distributed
with the same name.

I think it interesting that if we were talking about the software that
many people wouldn't even blink at precisely this scenario occurring,
indeed, it might even be encouraged. People take the debian software,
modify all references within it to point to their own site and
redistribute it. Why should the documentation be treated any
differently?

I should make it clear, I've no strong feeling on the debian.org web
pages, although I'd personally like to see Debian apply the principles
of the DFSG uniformly. I am very concerned about documentation though.

> I dunno. It'd be nice to have a GNU manifesto -style document that applied
> to music and books and everything, as well as just to software. Telling
> us in persuasive tones how just like programmers could be paid for
> services, bands could be paid for shows, or something.

I'm hoping that with determined effort and example, the free software
philosophy will extend into other areas of copyright application. I
believe we are seeing signs of this starting to happen. This would be a
bad time for us to compromise our own principles.

Terry

Re: Why Debian's webpages aren't DFGS-free ?

[Joey Hess]

Chris Lawrence wrote:
> The solution seems rather obvious:
> 
> Don't assign the copyright and use your own license.
> 
> I can't see a problem with putting pages on the web site that have a
> less restrictive license than the SPI copyright.  As a matter of fact,
> there can't be a problem, because the web site hosts documents under
> the GPL and other licenses.

The DWN stuff was just one case; I'm very concerned in general about the web
site violating our social contract.

-- 
see shy jo

Re: Why Debian's webpages aren't DFGS-free ?

[Joey Hess]

James A. Treacy wrote:
> People need to remember that the web content is the responsibility of
> everyone. Most of the people on this list (including you, Joey) have
> CVS access.  If you see a small problem, fix it. If you see a bigger
> problem, discuss it on debian-www and then fix it.

I have CVS access, but I don't have the right to go change the copyright
behind people's back. I'm not the copyright holder of the web site.

-- 
see shy jo

Re: Why Debian's webpages aren't DFGS-free ?

[Brian Ristuccia]

On Wed, Feb 02, 2000 at 03:44:49PM +0100, Tomasz Wegrzanowski wrote:
> 
> You may use and distribute this pages, either modified
> or not, as long as you preserve this licence, do not
> misrepresent modified pages as original and plainly
> mark all changes you did.
> 

Such a license sounds DFSG free, and I think changing the licenses on the
web pages to one like these sounds pretty good.

-- 
Brian Ristuccia
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Why Debian's webpages aren't DFGS-free ?

[James A. Treacy]

On Wed, Feb 02, 2000 at 09:09:39AM -0800, Joey Hess wrote:
> James A. Treacy wrote:
> > I don't care about this issue (got too many things going on at once). Come 
> > to
> > a consensus about what to do and someone do it.
> 
> Well I hope _someone_ gives a damn about little things like our social
> contract!
> 
People need to remember that the web content is the responsibility of
everyone. Most of the people on this list (including you, Joey) have
CVS access.  If you see a small problem, fix it. If you see a bigger
problem, discuss it on debian-www and then fix it.

I apologize for being a bit rude, but I can't maintain the web pages
by myself.

-- 
James (Jay) Treacy
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Why Debian's webpages aren't DFGS-free ?

[Joey Hess]

James A. Treacy wrote:
> I don't care about this issue (got too many things going on at once). Come to
> a consensus about what to do and someone do it.

Well I hope _someone_ gives a damn about little things like our social
contract!

-- 
see shy jo

Re: Why Debian's webpages aren't DFGS-free ?

[James A. Treacy]

On Wed, Feb 02, 2000 at 12:17:24AM -0500, Joey Hess wrote:
> Arrrgh! 
> 
> I brought this up on debian-www some time back, and I thought we agreed to
> change it to something free.
> 
> I am rather pissed off that my work on the web pages (DWN) continues to go
> out under this license. If something isn't done soon, I may move future
> issues, and keep the copyright, rahter than assigning to SPI as I have done
> so far. Sigh.
> 
I don't care about this issue (got too many things going on at once). Come to
a consensus about what to do and someone do it.

-- 
James (Jay) Treacy
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Why Debian's webpages aren't DFGS-free ?

[Chris Lawrence]

On Feb 02, Joey Hess wrote:
> I brought this up on debian-www some time back, and I thought we agreed to
> change it to something free.
> 
> I am rather pissed off that my work on the web pages (DWN) continues to go
> out under this license. If something isn't done soon, I may move future
> issues, and keep the copyright, rahter than assigning to SPI as I have done
> so far. Sigh.

The solution seems rather obvious:

Don't assign the copyright and use your own license.

I can't see a problem with putting pages on the web site that have a
less restrictive license than the SPI copyright.  As a matter of fact,
there can't be a problem, because the web site hosts documents under
the GPL and other licenses.


Chris
-- 
=
|Chris Lawrence| The Linux/m68k FAQ |
|   <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>   |   http://www.linux-m68k.org/faq/faq.html   |
|  ||
| Open Directory Editor|   Visit the Lurker's Guide to Babylon 5:   |
|   http://dmoz.org/   |   <*> http://www.midwinter.com/lurk/ <*>   |
=

Re: Why Debian's webpages aren't DFGS-free ?

[Joey Hess]

Arrrgh! 

I brought this up on debian-www some time back, and I thought we agreed to
change it to something free.

I am rather pissed off that my work on the web pages (DWN) continues to go
out under this license. If something isn't done soon, I may move future
issues, and keep the copyright, rahter than assigning to SPI as I have done
so far. Sigh.

Tomasz Wegrzanowski wrote:
> Why Debian's web pages are under such a licence ?
> It's not DFSG-free.
> 
>  start 
> License
> 
> Copyright © 1997-1998
> Software in the Public Interest (SPI)
> P.O. Box 1326
> Boston, MA 02117.
> 
> Verbatim copying and distribution is permitted in any medium, provided
> this notice is preserved.
> You may translate these documents and their license into another language
> providing:
> 
>  You do not deliberately change their meaning beyond changes meant
>  to achieve a colloquial rendering in another language
>  Translations of the license must be clearly marked as translations,
>  and the license in its original language shall continue to apply to
>  all translations
>  In the case of hypertext pages, you must maintain a copy of the
>  original page on the same site, and must provide a link from the
>  translated page to its original.
> 
> "Debian", The Debian Penguin Logo, "Open Hardware",
> and the Open Hardware Logo are trademarks of Software in the Public
> Interest, Inc.
> * end *

-- 
see shy jo, in New York

Re: Why Debian's webpages aren't DFGS-free ?

[Tomasz Wegrzanowski]

On Wed, Feb 02, 2000 at 03:28:29PM +0100, Per Lundberg wrote:
> > "TW" == Tomasz Wegrzanowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> That's not what I said. They are art. Art doesn't have "source
> >> code" in the same way as software.
> TW> Perl programs doesn't have source code either.
> 
> Yes they have. There are even Perl compilers.

This is rather translator of perl to obfuscated-C.
And sed and awk programs are source code, because there
are s2p and a2p, aren't they ?

> TW> And web pages have source code : HTML.
> 
> HTML is not the source code. If you generate the HTML pages from SGML
> input, that's source code.

>From GPL :
The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for
making modifications to it.

If someone prefers writing webpages in HTML, then HTML is source code
You can compile it to gtkdisplay, postscript or plaintext, for example,
you usually don't look at html when you look at page, but on one
of above compilations.

Re: Why Debian's webpages aren't DFGS-free ?

[Tomasz Wegrzanowski]

On Wed, Feb 02, 2000 at 11:55:04PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> are okay. But what about modifiable? Well, translations count, but that's
> pretty limited modification. Why should we allow more?

If one want to modify it, he certainly have a good reason to do it.
Will SPI lawsuit him for it ?

> Arguing that anything else is hypocritical kinda misses the point. We're
> about distributing an operating system, programs, stuff like that. Web
> pages are completely ancillary, and they're already good enough.

Our web pages are informational. They are about our operating system,
and as long as documentation is part of operating system, they are also.

> The counter-argument is to prevent people ripping off our work, or
> something.  For example, some unscrupulous dot-com could take all the
> Debian stuff, setup www.debian.foo.xy in their country, and confuse
> newbies into thinking that they're the official site. And everyone knows
> that Debian would do *anything* to avoid confusing newbies, so this is
> a completely unacceptable situation.
> 
> That said, it'd probably make some sense for us to allow people to make
> arbitrary modifications, presumably with the usual "but actually mention
> that this is a modified thing clearly an' all, y' hear?" clause. I mean,
> piping webpages through
> 
>   sed 's,http://www.debian.org/,http://localhost/debian/,g'
> 
> probably isn't something we particularly want to restrict, and at least
> the nasty dot-com scenario probably isn't particularly more likely to
> happen if the web pages can be legally copied or not.

So give them a licence :

You may use and distribute this pages, either modified
or not, as long as you preserve this licence, do not
misrepresent modified pages as original and plainly
mark all changes you did.

Re: Why Debian's webpages aren't DFGS-free ?

[Per Lundberg]

> "TW" == Tomasz Wegrzanowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

>> That's not what I said. They are art. Art doesn't have "source
>> code" in the same way as software.
TW> Perl programs doesn't have source code either.

Yes they have. There are even Perl compilers.

TW> And web pages have source code : HTML.

HTML is not the source code. If you generate the HTML pages from SGML
input, that's source code.

Re: Why Debian's webpages aren't DFGS-free ?

[Tomasz Wegrzanowski]

On Wed, Feb 02, 2000 at 12:55:27PM +0100, Per Lundberg wrote:
> That's not what I said. They are art. Art doesn't have "source code"
> in the same way as software.

Perl programs doesn't have source code either.
Do you claim that perl programs are not software ?

And web pages have source code : HTML.

Re: Why Debian's webpages aren't DFGS-free ?

[Anthony Towns]

On Wed, Feb 02, 2000 at 12:49:36PM +, Terry Dawson wrote:
> If programming is a means of artistic expression, surely software must
> be an art form.

Not every program is a work of art, by any means. The analogy to
architecture is pretty strong: (in an ideal world) the primary concerns
are functionality, reliability, and whether the finished product is any
good. The art of making the structure elegantly support its stresses
or whatever is there, but it'll only be appreciated by an elite few,
and the building itself won't really be considered artistic by most.

The only real construction `art' are, say, things like the Eiffel tower,
or the Statue of Liberty, and suchlike. They're not particularly common,
by any means. Things like, perhaps, befunge or intercal might rate as
actual programming art in a similar way, with perhaps a little less
elegance.

> For some time on the LDP mailing list I've put the argument that there
> should not be a difference between licenses for documentation and
> licenses for software.

Which they shouldn't be: generally you want to documentation to go with
the software, because that's how it's most useful.

> I'm yet to be presented with a compelling reason for treating them
> differently from a license perspective.

The problem with this is that most people aren't working from a
"intellectual property isn't" perspective. Debian's webpages are Debian's,
why should anyone else get any access to them? Sure, viewing them is a
good idea, but why should they be redistributable? Well, I guess mirrors
are okay. But what about modifiable? Well, translations count, but that's
pretty limited modification. Why should we allow more?

Arguing that anything else is hypocritical kinda misses the point. We're
about distributing an operating system, programs, stuff like that. Web
pages are completely ancillary, and they're already good enough.

The counter-argument is to prevent people ripping off our work, or
something.  For example, some unscrupulous dot-com could take all the
Debian stuff, setup www.debian.foo.xy in their country, and confuse
newbies into thinking that they're the official site. And everyone knows
that Debian would do *anything* to avoid confusing newbies, so this is
a completely unacceptable situation.

I mean, it seems like the world would be a better place if we didn't have
the MPAA going all jackbooted because they want to stop people copying
DVDs in ten years time, and if we could just say `well if it takes $30
to get a CD from , but nothing to get an mp3 from ...' and do
the capitalist, free-market thing, and so on the world would be pretty
neat. And we've even gotten a proof of concept now in the software
industry, at least in the short term.

I dunno. It'd be nice to have a GNU manifesto -style document that applied
to music and books and everything, as well as just to software. Telling
us in persuasive tones how just like programmers could be paid for
services, bands could be paid for shows, or something.

That said, it'd probably make some sense for us to allow people to make
arbitrary modifications, presumably with the usual "but actually mention
that this is a modified thing clearly an' all, y' hear?" clause. I mean,
piping webpages through

sed 's,http://www.debian.org/,http://localhost/debian/,g'

probably isn't something we particularly want to restrict, and at least
the nasty dot-com scenario probably isn't particularly more likely to
happen if the web pages can be legally copied or not.

Cheers,
aj

-- 
Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG encrypted mail preferred.

 ``The thing is: trying to be too generic is EVIL. It's stupid, it 
results in slower code, and it results in more bugs.''
-- Linus Torvalds


pgpWjvMacVmdJ.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Why Debian's webpages aren't DFGS-free ?

[Terry Dawson]

Per Lundberg wrote:

> That's not what I said. They are art. Art doesn't have "source code"
> in the same way as software.
> 
> TW> And programming is kind of art.
> 
> Sure. But *software* is not art.

If programming is a means of artistic expression, surely software must
be an art form.

For some time on the LDP mailing list I've put the argument that there
should not be a difference between licenses for documentation and
licenses for software.

I'm yet to be presented with a compelling reason for treating them
differently from a license perspective.

I'm quite concerned about some aspects of the proposed DGPL and intend
to discuss those concerns with rms directly.

I believe it is a mistake to allow concessional restrictions of freedom
to documentation, and other types of non-"software" work, that you would
not allow to software.

The free in "Free" documentation, should mean the same as the free in
"Free" Software.

Terry

Re: Why Debian's webpages aren't DFGS-free ?

[Per Lundberg]

> "TW" == Tomasz Wegrzanowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

>>  Yes. Even RMS thinks there's a difference between art (poetry,
>> books and IMO web pages) and software.
TW> Web pages are not poetry.

That's not what I said. They are art. Art doesn't have "source code"
in the same way as software.

TW> And programming is kind of art.

Sure. But *software* is not art.

Re: Why Debian's webpages aren't DFGS-free ?

[Tomasz Wegrzanowski]

On Wed, Feb 02, 2000 at 11:53:51AM +0100, Per Lundberg wrote:
> > "TD" == Terry Dawson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 
> >>  Web pages are not software.
> TD> Is there a sensible difference?
> 
> Yes. Even RMS thinks there's a difference between art (poetry, books
> and IMO web pages) and software.

Web pages are not poetry.
Some of them contain manuals, instructions etc.
And programming is kind of art.

Re: Why Debian's webpages aren't DFGS-free ?

[Per Lundberg]

> "TD" == Terry Dawson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

>>  Web pages are not software.
TD> Is there a sensible difference?

Yes. Even RMS thinks there's a difference between art (poetry, books
and IMO web pages) and software.

Re: Why Debian's webpages aren't DFGS-free ?

[Terry Dawson]

Per Lundberg wrote:

> TW> Why Debian's web pages are under such a licence ?  It's not
> TW> DFSG-free.
> 
> Web pages are not software.

Is there a sensible difference?

Terry

Re: Why Debian's webpages aren't DFGS-free ?

[Per Lundberg]

> "TW" == Tomasz Wegrzanowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

TW> Why Debian's web pages are under such a licence ?  It's not
TW> DFSG-free.

Web pages are not software.

Why Debian's webpages aren't DFGS-free ?

[Tomasz Wegrzanowski]

Why Debian's web pages are under such a licence ?
It's not DFSG-free.

 start 
License

Copyright © 1997-1998
Software in the Public Interest (SPI)
P.O. Box 1326
Boston, MA 02117.

Verbatim copying and distribution is permitted in any medium, provided
this notice is preserved.
You may translate these documents and their license into another language
providing:

 You do not deliberately change their meaning beyond changes meant
 to achieve a colloquial rendering in another language
 Translations of the license must be clearly marked as translations,
 and the license in its original language shall continue to apply to
 all translations
 In the case of hypertext pages, you must maintain a copy of the
 original page on the same site, and must provide a link from the
 translated page to its original.

"Debian", The Debian Penguin Logo, "Open Hardware",
and the Open Hardware Logo are trademarks of Software in the Public
Interest, Inc.
* end *