Re: Bug#323099: no longer a bug.
On Sun, Mar 12, 2006 at 01:39:45PM -0500, Mike O'Connor wrote: > from the documentation in question: > "Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document > under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or > any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with the > Invariant Sections being ``GNU General Public License'' and ``GNU Free > Documentation License'', with no Front-Cover Texts, and with no > Back-Cover Texts. A copy of the license is included in the section > entitled ``GNU Free Documentation License''." > The only things the documentation license holds as invariant are the GPL > and the GFDL themselves, and Debian already accepts those as being > invariant, this documentation should no longer be considered non-free in > light of GR-2006-01. But becuase of this, I'm copying debian-legal. Debian accepts that the license for a work itself may be invariant, but if the documentation isn't released under the GPL, why is it ok to require us to carry around the text of some *other* license with that documentation? My own answer to this is that it isn't. It's sane for us to be required to distribute a copy of the license together with a work; it's not sane for us tobe required to distribute copies of *other* licenses that have no legal relevance together with a work. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/ signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Bug#323099: no longer a bug.
Scripsit Mike O'Connor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Debian does have the requirement that you can modify the licenses that > software is released under, right? No, we traditionally do accept non-modifiable licenses, though we try weakly to discourage them. -- Henning Makholm"Detta, sade de, vore rena sanningen; ty de kunde tala sanning lika väl som någon annan, när de bara visste vad det tjänade til." -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: no longer a bug.
* Mike O'Connor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [060312 19:40]: > The only things the documentation license holds as invariant are the GPL > and the GFDL themselves, and Debian already accepts those as being > invariant, this documentation should no longer be considered non-free in > light of GR-2006-01. But becuase of this, I'm copying debian-legal. While the license is an invariant part of the document (and thus in my eyes enough to make it non-free), a invariant section is a far more restrictive, as you cannot change their title. (I even met people frightened to change the title from all caps to something fitting to the rest of the titles in the table of contents). Hochachtungsvoll, Bernhard R. Link -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bug#323099: no longer a bug.
Mike O'Connor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > [see http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#ModifyGPL ]. > > That URL says that you can modify the GPL to create your own license, > then release your software under that license, just don't call it "GPL" > anymore. It doesn't say, you can take some work that someone has > released under the GPL and modify the license, the release it under this > modified license. > > What the author has done in this case is say, "you can use this software > under these licenses, you can modify the software, but you cannot modify > the licenses". I see the invariance of licences as a practical consequence of copyright law. If a licensor (note: not author) says we cannot modify the licence, that's a no-op for packages under that licence: we should be giving our downstream recipients the copyright licence as we got it anyway. If you put a licence as an uneditable part of another work (putting a GPL copy into a FDL invariant section, for example), then it is a bug. > Debian does have the requirement that you can modify the licenses that > software is released under, right? I don't understand this question. The licence is granted by upstream. We may or may not be able to release a derived work under a different licence, but as long as we can release it as free software under the same licence, that meets the DFSG (IIRC). Hope that explains, -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: no longer a bug.
El domingo, 12 de marzo de 2006 a las 13:39:45 -0500, Mike O'Connor escribía: > The only things the documentation license holds as invariant are the GPL > and the GFDL themselves, and Debian already accepts those as being > invariant, this documentation should no longer be considered non-free in > light of GR-2006-01. But becuase of this, I'm copying debian-legal. The GPL is not the license of the document, so it is not the case. -- Jacobo Tarrío | http://jacobo.tarrio.org/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bug#323099: no longer a bug.
On Sun, 2006-03-12 at 20:13 +, MJ Ray wrote: > Mike O'Connor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Finally, the GPL is not invariant: IIRC, you can edit it if you delete > the preamble [see http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#ModifyGPL ]. > Debian contains the version we received, though. On debian systems, > the GPL is in /usr/share/common-licenses and packages should refer to > it rather than include another copy. That URL says that you can modify the GPL to create your own license, then release your software under that license, just don't call it "GPL" anymore. It doesn't say, you can take some work that someone has released under the GPL and modify the license, the release it under this modified license. What the author has done in this case is say, "you can use this software under these licenses, you can modify the software, but you cannot modify the licenses". Debian does have the requirement that you can modify the licenses that software is released under, right? stew -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bug#323099: no longer a bug.
Mike O'Connor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > The only things the documentation license holds as invariant are the GPL > and the GFDL themselves, and Debian already accepts those as being > invariant, this documentation should no longer be considered non-free in > light of GR-2006-01. But becuase of this, I'm copying debian-legal. As the 3:2 split between the original and amended texts shows, there is still no consensus that works under the FDL follow the DFSG. Too soon to say how GR-2006-01 influences these bugs, in my opinion. Unfortunately, the FDL also appears to have practical problems, including either needing source in the binary package, or a long-life URL. Again, I'm not sure what the effect of that is. Finally, the GPL is not invariant: IIRC, you can edit it if you delete the preamble [see http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#ModifyGPL ]. Debian contains the version we received, though. On debian systems, the GPL is in /usr/share/common-licenses and packages should refer to it rather than include another copy. Hope that helps, -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: no longer a bug.
"Mike O'Connor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > from the documentation in question: > > "Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document > under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or > any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with the > Invariant Sections being ``GNU General Public License'' and ``GNU Free > Documentation License'', with no Front-Cover Texts, and with no > Back-Cover Texts. A copy of the license is included in the section > entitled ``GNU Free Documentation License''." > > The only things the documentation license holds as invariant are the GPL > and the GFDL themselves, and Debian already accepts those as being > invariant, this documentation should no longer be considered non-free in > light of GR-2006-01. But becuase of this, I'm copying debian-legal. Unfortunately, no. The GFDL already requires that the license be included in the document, so putting it in an invariant section does not change anything. However, that is not true for the text of the GPL. If someone wants to reuse the documentation for a BSD-licensed work, the GPL would be completely off topic. Cheers, Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
no longer a bug.
from the documentation in question: "Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with the Invariant Sections being ``GNU General Public License'' and ``GNU Free Documentation License'', with no Front-Cover Texts, and with no Back-Cover Texts. A copy of the license is included in the section entitled ``GNU Free Documentation License''." The only things the documentation license holds as invariant are the GPL and the GFDL themselves, and Debian already accepts those as being invariant, this documentation should no longer be considered non-free in light of GR-2006-01. But becuase of this, I'm copying debian-legal. -stew -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
