Re: Amendment: GFDL is compatible with DFSG

[Anton Zinoviev]

On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 02:29:38AM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 01:45:40AM +0200, Anton Zinoviev wrote:
>
> > For example the GNU General Public License contains the following
> > clause:
> > 
> >If the modified program normally reads commands interactively when
> >run, you must cause it, when started running for such interactive
> >use in the most ordinary way, to print or display an announcement
> >including an appropriate copyright notice and a notice that there
> >is no warranty (or else, saying that you provide a warranty) and
> >that users may redistribute the program under these conditions, and
> >telling the user how to view a copy of this License.
> 
> This argument has been brought up a number of times already, but it does
> not hold.

It is possible that this argument does hold the way it has been used.
However here I am using it in a different way - to prove something you
will certainly agree.  This is my point: many licenses, including GPL,
enforce some restrictions on the modifications and despite that we
consider them DFSG clean.  Consequently when judging whether some
license is free or not, one has to take into account what kind of
restrictions are imposed (not just whether there are restrictions or
not).

> The primary objection to the invariant sections in the GFDL is precisely
> that this is not possible; if you would want to synthesize a manual into
> something small, you would still not be allowed to remove the invariant
> sections. Worse; since after synthesizing the text the bits that are
> about the subject matter could end up being smaller than the cumulative
> amount of invariant sections, it might not even be legally possible to
> synthesize a manual.

We are not allowed to remove the copyright notices from many programs
and manuals but we don't claim they are non-free because of these
copyright notices.  These notices can be very long as we see from
/usr/share/doc/x11-common/copyright.  These notices can also contain
personal statements as we see from the preamble of GPL.  What if
someone includes the GNU Manifesto in the preamble of a free
documentation license - we would not say that this license is
non-free, would't we?

> Synthesizing info manuals is something that Debian does regularly (or,
> at least, should do; our policy requires that every binary comes with a
> manpage, and that info documentation is not sufficient. Extracting the
> relevant bits from the info manual would be the logical choice to remedy
> this).

If the man-page is structured as a chapter from a bigger document,
then it would be unnecessary to include the invariant sections in it.
The man-pages of Perl show how a man-page can be a part from bigger
document.

(I must admit it didn't occured to me that if we remove the
GFDL-licensed info-manuals from Debian, then we will have to remove
also the automatically generated man-pages...)

> > The licenses that contain the so called "advertising clause" give us
> > another example:
> > 
> >All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this
> >software must display the following acknowledgement: "This product
> >includes software developed by ..."
> 
> Again, this analogy does not hold. Advertising clauses only apply to
> advertising material, not to the software (or the manual) itself;
> conversely, the requirements in the GFDL regarding invariant sections,
> acknowledgements and cover texts _do_ apply to the manual itself.

Nevertheless, the Advertising clauses can apply to components that
Debian distributes and considers 100% free.

The requirements in the GFDL are limited only to some special sections
from the manual.  The requirements of the Advertising clause can
potentially apply to anything - for example to the Help/About dialogs
or to any manuals that mention features or use of the software.  GFDL
restricts only directly derived documents, the Advertising clause
restricts all advertising materials.

> > Consequently when judging whether some license is free or not, one has
> > to take into account what kind of restrictions are imposed and how
> > these restrictions fit to the Social Contract of Debian:
> > 
> >4. Our priorities are our users and free software
> 
> This part of the Social Contract does not mean that we should bend the
> rules of freedom to accomodate for our users. As such, it cannot be an
> argument as to whether the GFDL is free or not.

Ofcourse it does not mean that.  The point is that me can not impose
on the free software community alternative meaning of "free software".

> It says that you *must* either include a Transparent copy along with
> each opaque copy

If the website contains both the transparent and the opaque copy then
indeed the transparent copy will be _along_ with each opaque copy (not
with or in each opaque copy).  If not, then the requirements of GPL
are more strong than the requirements of GFDL.

> (thus, if you print a book, you must

Re: Amendment: GFDL is compatible with DFSG

[Wouter Verhelst]

On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 10:41:25AM +0200, Anton Zinoviev wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 02:29:38AM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 01:45:40AM +0200, Anton Zinoviev wrote:
> >
> > > For example the GNU General Public License contains the following
> > > clause:
> > > 
> > >If the modified program normally reads commands interactively when
> > >run, you must cause it, when started running for such interactive
> > >use in the most ordinary way, to print or display an announcement
> > >including an appropriate copyright notice and a notice that there
> > >is no warranty (or else, saying that you provide a warranty) and
> > >that users may redistribute the program under these conditions, and
> > >telling the user how to view a copy of this License.
> > 
> > This argument has been brought up a number of times already, but it does
> > not hold.
> 
> It is possible that this argument does hold the way it has been used.
> However here I am using it in a different way - to prove something you
> will certainly agree.  This is my point: many licenses, including GPL,
> enforce some restrictions on the modifications and despite that we
> consider them DFSG clean.  Consequently when judging whether some
> license is free or not, one has to take into account what kind of
> restrictions are imposed (not just whether there are restrictions or
> not).

That, I can agree with. So let's do that: let's see at what restrictions
are imposed, and whether they would allow me to modify the document so
that it would allow me to do anything I, as a Debian maintainer, would
want to do with it in the name of improving the situation for our users.

When we go ahead and do so, we find that it does not. If I would want to
synthesize a GNU info document into a manual page, I would be forced to
retain any and all invariant sections that this info document contains.
In itself, that would not be a problem; however, it may be the case that
after my modifications, the invariant sections end up being the majority
of the text. At that point, they will fail the definition of 'secondary
section' as defined by the GFDL itself, so I would not be allowed to
distribute this manual page anymore.

Do you agree that the ability to take an info document and to extract
the relevant bits for a manpage is a freedom that we should have for
documentation? If you do, you should oppose invariant sections.

> > The primary objection to the invariant sections in the GFDL is precisely
> > that this is not possible; if you would want to synthesize a manual into
> > something small, you would still not be allowed to remove the invariant
> > sections. Worse; since after synthesizing the text the bits that are
> > about the subject matter could end up being smaller than the cumulative
> > amount of invariant sections, it might not even be legally possible to
> > synthesize a manual.
> 
> We are not allowed to remove the copyright notices from many programs
> and manuals but we don't claim they are non-free because of these
> copyright notices.

There is a fundamental difference between copyright notices and
invariant sections.  One is required by law; the other is not.

> These notices can be very long as we see from
> /usr/share/doc/x11-common/copyright.  These notices can also contain
> personal statements as we see from the preamble of GPL.  What if
> someone includes the GNU Manifesto in the preamble of a free
> documentation license - we would not say that this license is
> non-free, would't we?

The problem is not about large opinionated sections in copyright
statements; the problem is about immutable and non-removable sections in
documentation.

> > Synthesizing info manuals is something that Debian does regularly (or,
> > at least, should do; our policy requires that every binary comes with a
> > manpage, and that info documentation is not sufficient. Extracting the
> > relevant bits from the info manual would be the logical choice to remedy
> > this).
> 
> If the man-page is structured as a chapter from a bigger document,
> then it would be unnecessary to include the invariant sections in it.

No, that is not how the GFDL is written.

> The man-pages of Perl show how a man-page can be a part from bigger
> document.
> 
> (I must admit it didn't occured to me that if we remove the
> GFDL-licensed info-manuals from Debian, then we will have to remove
> also the automatically generated man-pages...)

Well, yes, we will.

> > > The licenses that contain the so called "advertising clause" give us
> > > another example:
> > > 
> > >All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this
> > >software must display the following acknowledgement: "This product
> > >includes software developed by ..."
> > 
> > Again, this analogy does not hold. Advertising clauses only apply to
> > advertising material, not to the software (or the manual) itself;
> > conversely, the requirements in the GFDL regarding 

Re: For those who care about the GR

[Frank Küster]

Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>   Q1.1) Are GFDL licensed works without invariant texts non-free?
>
>Well, according to the RM team, and some developers (full
>disclosure: myself included), yes, they are, even if there is no
>explicit infraction of specific portions of our guidelines.
>
>The release team, a delegated body, has unequivocally stated that
>the GFDL licensed works are non-free, with no codicils and riders
>about absence of invariant clauses.
>
>Absent any other action, I am, by my own analysis, and the actions
>of the RM team, going to treat these works as non-free -- and this
>impacts issue 2.
>
> So, can the developers dispute this? Obviously, the developer
>  body can dispute any delegated action. 

And the consititution does not specifiy a supermajority requirement for
this case, while it specifically does so if the TC is overruled.

Regards, Frank
-- 
Frank Küster
Single Molecule Spectroscopy, Protein Folding @ Inst. f. Biochemie, Univ. Zürich
Debian Developer (teTeX)

Re: Amendment: GFDL is compatible with DFSG

[Anton Zinoviev]

On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 10:28:18AM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> 
> That, I can agree with. So let's do that: let's see at what restrictions
> are imposed, and whether they would allow me to modify the document so
> that it would allow me to do anything I, as a Debian maintainer, would
> want to do with it in the name of improving the situation for our users.

Fine. :-)
 
> When we go ahead and do so, we find that it does not. If I would want to
> synthesize a GNU info document into a manual page, I would be forced to
> retain any and all invariant sections that this info document contains.
> In itself, that would not be a problem; however, it may be the case that
> after my modifications, the invariant sections end up being the majority
> of the text. At that point, they will fail the definition of 'secondary
> section' as defined by the GFDL itself, so I would not be allowed to
> distribute this manual page anymore.

They will not fail the definition of "secondary section", but that is
not relevant here, because you don't have to include all invariant
sections in every single man-page.

> Do you agree that the ability to take an info document and to extract
> the relevant bits for a manpage is a freedom that we should have for
> documentation? If you do, you should oppose invariant sections.

Yes, I agree.  However as I wrote in my previous email, you can
structure the man-pages in a way that makes every single man-page to
be only a part from a bigger document.  In order to fulfil the
requirements of the license you only need to include the invariant
sections in only one of your man-pages.  (You will also have to
distribute the man-pages as a whole.)

When the document is distributed in HTML-format, we do exactly this -
each chapter can have its own short sized html-page and the invariant
sections are separated in their own html-pages.  We do not include the
invariant sections in all chapters of the document.

> There is a fundamental difference between copyright notices and
> invariant sections.  One is required by law; the other is not.
> 
> > These notices can be very long as we see from
> > /usr/share/doc/x11-common/copyright.  These notices can also contain
> > personal statements as we see from the preamble of GPL.  What if
> > someone includes the GNU Manifesto in the preamble of a free
> > documentation license - we would not say that this license is
> > non-free, would't we?
> 
> The problem is not about large opinionated sections in copyright
> statements; the problem is about immutable and non-removable sections in
> documentation.

The point is there is no practical difference whether the GNU
Manifesto is placed in the preamble of the license or it is placed in
an invariant section.

> > If the man-page is structured as a chapter from a bigger document,
> > then it would be unnecessary to include the invariant sections in it.
> 
> No, that is not how the GFDL is written.

I already wrote about the man-pages.  GFDL does not specify what
constitutes the whole document.  The copyright message of the document
should specify this when it is unclear.

> > Nevertheless, the Advertising clauses can apply to components that
> > Debian distributes and considers 100% free.
> 
> I did not contest that.
> 
> > The requirements in the GFDL are limited only to some special sections
> > from the manual.
> 
> That is completely besides the point. The requirements may be limited to
> some special sections, but they have an effect on the manual as a whole.

The requirements of the Advertising clauses also can have effect on
the manual as a whole.  Infact, the requirements of the Advertising
clause are much more severe because they have effect not only to one
particular manual but to any advertising material mentioning features
or use of the covered software whatsoever.  Potentially this can have
effect on any manual or program that mentions features or use of the
covered sofwere.

> > Ofcourse it does not mean that.  The point is that me can not impose
> > on the free software community alternative meaning of "free software".
> 
> There are as many different definitions of 'Free Software' as there are
> Free Software activists.

Strictly speaking, you may be right.

Anyway, the GNU project, GNOME, KDE and many other free software
developers consider and use GFDL as a free license.  Even if there are
different definitions of "Free Software" (and "Free Documentation")
most of them seem to acknowledge GFDL as free.

> However, the requirements regarding transparent copies become onerous if
> you are offering printed (i.e., on paper) versions of the manual.

Not, at all.

> > > (thus, if you print a book, you must include a CD-ROM), or maintain
> > > a website (or something similar) for no less than one year after
> > > distributing the opaque copy.
> > 
> > Sadly - many Debian developers consider this an argument against GFDL
> > even though the restrictions of GPL are way more severe.  For printed
> > books GPL

Re: Amendment: GFDL is compatible with DFSG

[Raphael Hertzog]

On Mon, 23 Jan 2006, Anton Zinoviev wrote:
> Hereby I am proposing an amendment to the GR about GFDL opened by
> Anthony Towns [Sun, 01 Jan 2006 15:02:04 +1000]
> 
> I wish to thank everybody who will support this amendment, especially
> I wish to thank those who second it.

I second the amendment proposed by Anton Zinoviev in
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>.

I think that the whole body of Debian developers have their right to
express how they interpret the GFDL and that we need to vote on the
subject. This amendment being a regularly voiced opinion, it should
definitely be on the ballot.

(I have not yet made my opinion if I will vote this amendment or not but
I'm definitely for something more reasonable than removing all our
documentation, and this amemdment is one possible solution).

Regards,
-- 
Raphaël Hertzog

Premier livre français sur Debian GNU/Linux :
http://www.ouaza.com/livre/admin-debian/


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Amendment: GFDL is compatible with DFSG

[Kalle Kivimaa]

Anton Zinoviev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The point is there is no practical difference whether the GNU
> Manifesto is placed in the preamble of the license or it is placed in
> an invariant section.

Actually, there is. I think that the consensus of debian-legal has
been that we must accept the fact that modifications to the license
terms are forbidden by the law. This does not mean that we should
accept unmodifiable sections elsewhere in the works.

-- 
* Sufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology (T.P)  *
*   PGP public key available @ http://www.iki.fi/killer   *


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

Re: Amendment: GFDL is compatible with DFSG

[Xavier Roche]

On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 01:45:40AM +0200, Anton Zinoviev wrote:
> Hereby I am proposing an amendment to the GR about GFDL opened by
> Anthony Towns [Sun, 01 Jan 2006 15:02:04 +1000]
> GNU Free Documentation License protects the freedom,
> it is compatible with Debian Free Software Guidelines

I second Anton Zinoviev's amendement.

I am not still sure about this issue, but the GFDL "problem" is definitely 
something we have to handle, as it could hurt our users (ie. removing all 
GFDLed documentation is not a realistic solution)

Xavier



pgpXv9O4zprao.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Amendment: GFDL is compatible with DFSG

[Isaac Clerencia]

On Monday 23 January 2006 14:37, Xavier Roche wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 01:45:40AM +0200, Anton Zinoviev wrote:
> > Hereby I am proposing an amendment to the GR about GFDL opened by
> > Anthony Towns [Sun, 01 Jan 2006 15:02:04 +1000]
> > GNU Free Documentation License protects the freedom,
> > it is compatible with Debian Free Software Guidelines
>
> I second Anton Zinoviev's amendement.
AFAIK you must completely quote the amendment to second it.


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

Re: For those who care about the GR

[Bill Allombert]

On Sun, Jan 22, 2006 at 04:19:49PM -0600, Peter Samuelson wrote:
> 
> [Bill Allombert]
> > Fact 1: The GFDL include this:
> > 
> >  "You may not use technical measures to obstruct or control the
> >   reading or further copying of the copies you make or distribute."
> > 
> > Fact 2: The DFSG include this:
> > 
> > 6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor
> > 
> >  The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the
> >  program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not
> >  restrict the program from being used in a business, or from
> >  being used for genetic research.
> 
> Yes
> 
> > Fact 3:
> > 
> > There exist fields of endeavours that require mandatory encryption.
> > For example, if you work in security-sensitive field, you can be
> > required to use a hard-drive with built-in encryption.  This
> > technology certainly control who can read the disk.  In that case,
> > you cannot copy a GFDL licensed document to your computer for reading
> > it.
> 
> That's not at all what DFSG 6 means.  That's equivalent to interpreting
> DFSG 6 to ban the GPL on the grounds that it discriminates against
> proprietary software companies.

No, the GPL does not ban proprietary software companies from using the
software.

> DFSG 6 does not say "anything a company might plausibly want to do, our
> software must allow them to do".  It merely says that every field of
> endeavor must be given the same rights.  Never mind whether that set of
> rights is enough to satisfy any given party.

No it does not either. It says "The license must not restrict anyone from
making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor".  No mention
of "giving the same right".

Cheers,
Bill.


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

Re: For those who care about the GR

[Pierre Habouzit]

> > > Fact 3:
> > >
> > > There exist fields of endeavours that require mandatory
> > > encryption. For example, if you work in security-sensitive field,
> > > you can be required to use a hard-drive with built-in encryption.
> > >  This technology certainly control who can read the disk.  In
> > > that case, you cannot copy a GFDL licensed document to your
> > > computer for reading it.
> >
> > That's not at all what DFSG 6 means.  That's equivalent to
> > interpreting DFSG 6 to ban the GPL on the grounds that it
> > discriminates against proprietary software companies.
>
> No, the GPL does not ban proprietary software companies from using
> the software.

Not *yet*. GPLv3 does (with the Patent related clauses) ;p
does it makes GPLv3 non free ?



-- 
·O·  Pierre Habouzit
··O[EMAIL PROTECTED]
OOOhttp://www.madism.org


pgpinnEfNDckA.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Amendment: GFDL is compatible with DFSG

[Wouter Verhelst]

On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 12:59:54PM +0200, Anton Zinoviev wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 10:28:18AM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > 
> > That, I can agree with. So let's do that: let's see at what restrictions
> > are imposed, and whether they would allow me to modify the document so
> > that it would allow me to do anything I, as a Debian maintainer, would
> > want to do with it in the name of improving the situation for our users.
> 
> Fine. :-)
>  
> > When we go ahead and do so, we find that it does not. If I would want to
> > synthesize a GNU info document into a manual page, I would be forced to
> > retain any and all invariant sections that this info document contains.
> > In itself, that would not be a problem; however, it may be the case that
> > after my modifications, the invariant sections end up being the majority
> > of the text. At that point, they will fail the definition of 'secondary
> > section' as defined by the GFDL itself, so I would not be allowed to
> > distribute this manual page anymore.
> 
> They will not fail the definition of "secondary section",

Yes, they will. The definition of "secondary section" in the FDL reads
as follows:

A "Secondary Section" is a named appendix or a front-matter section
of the Document that deals exclusively with the relationship of the
publishers or authors of the Document to the Document's overall
subject (or to related matters) and contains nothing that could fall
directly within that overall subject.  (Thus, if the Document is in
part a textbook of mathematics, a Secondary Section may not explain
any mathematics.)

If you write a document that talks for 99% about using a program, and
for 1% about software freedom, then that 1% is a secondary section
according to this definition.

If you then remove most of the content from that document so that only
the relevant bits for a manual page and those secondary sections are
left behind, then it could very well be that 10% of the resulting text
is your technical documentation while 90% of your text is that section
about software freedom.

At this point, you can no longer reasonably say that the "Document's
overall subject" is the technical documentation; rather, at that point
the Document's overall subject will be software freedom.

It will then fail the definition of "Secondary Section" as explained in
the FDL. QED.

> but that is not relevant here, because you don't have to include all
> invariant sections in every single man-page.

Does not follow. You have to include them all; whether or not you have
to include them on every manpage in a given package is not relevant.

[...]
> > > These notices can be very long as we see from
> > > /usr/share/doc/x11-common/copyright.  These notices can also contain
> > > personal statements as we see from the preamble of GPL.  What if
> > > someone includes the GNU Manifesto in the preamble of a free
> > > documentation license - we would not say that this license is
> > > non-free, would't we?
> > 
> > The problem is not about large opinionated sections in copyright
> > statements; the problem is about immutable and non-removable sections in
> > documentation.
> 
> The point is there is no practical difference whether the GNU
> Manifesto is placed in the preamble of the license or it is placed in
> an invariant section.

There is; see also Kalle's reply. Moreover, I personally would not
accept a license that contains a preamble which is three times as long
as the actual license text and which claims that Free Software is a
virus (or something similar) as a Free License.

[...]
> > > The requirements in the GFDL are limited only to some special sections
> > > from the manual.
> > 
> > That is completely besides the point. The requirements may be limited to
> > some special sections, but they have an effect on the manual as a whole.
> 
> The requirements of the Advertising clauses also can have effect on
> the manual as a whole.  Infact, the requirements of the Advertising
> clause are much more severe because they have effect not only to one
> particular manual but to any advertising material mentioning features
> or use of the covered software whatsoever.  Potentially this can have
> effect on any manual or program that mentions features or use of the
> covered sofwere.
> 
> > > Ofcourse it does not mean that.  The point is that me can not impose
> > > on the free software community alternative meaning of "free software".
> > 
> > There are as many different definitions of 'Free Software' as there are
> > Free Software activists.
> 
> Strictly speaking, you may be right.

Of course; and the point of this whole excercise is to find out what
exactly the common stance of the Debian project on this question is.
We would not impose anything on anyone by defining for ourselves what
"free software" is; rather, we would put forward our position; other
people would be allowed to either agree or disagree.

Sure, there will be practical effects t

Re: For those who care about the GR

[Laurent Fousse]

* Pierre Habouzit [Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 04:23:46PM +0100]:
> > No, the GPL does not ban proprietary software companies from using
> > the software.
> 
> Not *yet*. GPLv3 does (with the Patent related clauses) ;p

I really don't think the current draft "ban proprietary software
companies from using the software".


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

Re: Amendment: GFDL is compatible with DFSG

[Russ Allbery]

Raphael Hertzog <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> I second the amendment proposed by Anton Zinoviev in
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>.

> I think that the whole body of Debian developers have their right to
> express how they interpret the GFDL and that we need to vote on the
> subject. This amendment being a regularly voiced opinion, it should
> definitely be on the ballot.

In that case, could someone please propose an amendment which captures the
*other* regularly voiced opinion, namely that GFDL without invarient
sections is DFSG-free but with invarient sections is not, and phrase that
in an appropriate form as an override of the decision of a delegate so
that we can be done with this and have all the options represented?  Lots
of technical problems have shown up with the current amendment that tried
to do that and it clearly needs a revision in light of the discussion.

If we're going to put all the options on the ballot, let's go ahead and
put them *all* on the ballot so that no significant group of DDs can later
claim that their opinion wasn't represented by the choices.

-- 
Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED])   


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

Re: Amendment: GFDL is compatible with DFSG

[Adeodato Simó]

* Russ Allbery [Mon, 23 Jan 2006 09:17:14 -0800]:

> If we're going to put all the options on the ballot, let's go ahead and
> put them *all* on the ballot so that no significant group of DDs can later
> claim that their opinion wasn't represented by the choices.

  Latelly, I'm thinking that this (in a similar fashion to Manoj's mail)
  is the best option. The only problem I see is that Manoj's mail seems
  to want to attach a position statement to each option, and that can be
  divisive. I'm starting to see the benefits of a prior vote...

-- 
Adeodato Simó dato at net.com.org.es
Debian Developer  adeodato at debian.org
 
Proper treatment will cure a cold in seven days, but left to itself, a
cold will hang on for a week.
-- Darrell Huff


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

Re: Amendment: GFDL is compatible with DFSG

[Raphael Hertzog]

On Mon, 23 Jan 2006, Russ Allbery wrote:
> In that case, could someone please propose an amendment which captures the
> *other* regularly voiced opinion, namely that GFDL without invarient
> sections is DFSG-free but with invarient sections is not, and phrase that
> in an appropriate form as an override of the decision of a delegate so
> that we can be done with this and have all the options represented?  Lots
> of technical problems have shown up with the current amendment that tried
> to do that and it clearly needs a revision in light of the discussion.
> 
> If we're going to put all the options on the ballot, let's go ahead and
> put them *all* on the ballot so that no significant group of DDs can later
> claim that their opinion wasn't represented by the choices.

FWIW, I agree with you, however I'll only second them as I do not have enough
time to draft them.

Cheers,
-- 
Raphaël Hertzog

Premier livre français sur Debian GNU/Linux :
http://www.ouaza.com/livre/admin-debian/


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

Re: Amendment: GFDL is compatible with DFSG

[Russ Allbery]

Adeodato Simó <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> * Russ Allbery [Mon, 23 Jan 2006 09:17:14 -0800]:

>> If we're going to put all the options on the ballot, let's go ahead and
>> put them *all* on the ballot so that no significant group of DDs can
>> later claim that their opinion wasn't represented by the choices.

>   Latelly, I'm thinking that this (in a similar fashion to Manoj's mail)
>   is the best option. The only problem I see is that Manoj's mail seems
>   to want to attach a position statement to each option, and that can be
>   divisive. I'm starting to see the benefits of a prior vote...

Me too.  The question raised by the original proposal here seems to be
more one of whether we want to make a public policy statement about an
issue already decided by delegates.  After reading Manoj's messages, I
think it's clear that, if people want to vote on whether to override the
delegate decision, we should do that *first*.  Then, once that's settled,
we can look at what public position statements may or may not be
appropriate.

-- 
Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED])   

Re: For those who care about the GR

[Anthony DeRobertis]

On Sun, Jan 22, 2006 at 03:42:39PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:

> > And what? If someone tries to bring through a GR stating that
> >  MS office warez can be distributed in main since it meets the DFSG,
> >  one might rule that as frivolous and a waste of time.
> 
> I'm not convinced the constitution gives the secretary the power to make
> such a ruling.  There are no provisions in the constitution for the Project
> Secretary to dismiss a GR -- *even* a GR stating that the Debian Project
> holds the value of pi to be 3 -- so long as the GR has the requisite number
> of seconds.

I suspect the Secretary could effectively do so by declining to take the
vote under Section 2.1.1 ("[n]othing in this constitution imposes an
obligation on anyone to do work for the Project.") It seems then that
the secretary has no obligation to actually perform 4.2.3 or 7.1.1.

> 
> In the present case, I understand that the proposed ballot option is
> ambiguous wrt whether it constitutes an implicit amendment to the foundation
> docs, and that in the absence of clarification (in the form of a re-worded
> proposal) on the part of the proposer, it is the project secretary's
> prerogative to specify a supermajority requirement.

I think that under 7.1.3, it'd be the Secretary's job/power to determine
supermajority requirement regardless of what the proposed ballot option
says.

If 6 developers (K=5 currently, I think) can decide that the
supermajority requirements to not apply to a ballot option, then the
supermajority requirements are rather worthless.


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

Re: Amendment: GFDL is compatible with DFSG

[Daniel Ruoso]

Em Seg, 2006-01-23 às 10:28 +0100, Wouter Verhelst escreveu:
> On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 10:41:25AM +0200, Anton Zinoviev wrote:
> > If you do not have any access to my encrypted or "chmod -r" copy, then
> > I am not controllyng your reading or further copying
> Really. If you maintain a copy of a GFDL'ed work on one of your
> debian.org home directories without the world-writable read bit set, you
> are in violation of the license, as written.

Hmmm... This made me think twice...

The license is an agreement that regulates one action: the distribution,
right? Is this clause enforcable to your private copies (considering it
as a bug)? or just to the copies you distribute...

I mean, I know the license says "the copies you make or distribute",
but, by definition, wouldn't it apply only to the act of distribution?

daniel


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

Re: Amendment: GFDL is compatible with DFSG

[Wouter Verhelst]

On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 03:23:02PM -0300, Daniel Ruoso wrote:
> I mean, I know the license says "the copies you make or distribute",
> but, by definition, wouldn't it apply only to the act of distribution?

No. By default, copyright does not grant you a license to copy a work;
if the license allows you to copy a work anyway under certain
conditions, then you are giving more rights to your users than what the
law allows, so you can do that. You are allowed to say 'you may not copy
it in such a way that nobody can read it'.

There are some exceptions--you are allowed to copy a computer program
from the installation medium to the hard disk of your computer, and from
the hard disk of your computer to its RAM, provided you are not
otherwise in breach of the license--but they are exceptions, and most
copying is not allowed.

-- 
.../ -/ ---/ .--./ / .--/ .-/ .../ -/ ../ -./ --./ / -.--/ ---/ ..-/ .-./ / -/
../ --/ ./ / .--/ ../ -/ / / -../ ./ -.-./ ---/ -../ ../ -./ --./ / --/
-.--/ / .../ ../ --./ -./ .-/ -/ ..-/ .-./ ./ .-.-.-/ / --/ ---/ .-./ .../ ./ /
../ .../ / ---/ ..-/ -/ -../ .-/ -/ ./ -../ / -/ ./ -.-./ / -./ ---/ .-../
---/ --./ -.--/ / .-/ -./ -.--/ .--/ .-/ -.--/ .-.-.-/ / ...-.-/


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

GPLv3 Patent Clauses [Was: Re: For those who care about the GR]

[Don Armstrong]

On Mon, 23 Jan 2006, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> > No, the GPL does not ban proprietary software companies from using
> > the software.
> 
> Not *yet*. GPLv3 does (with the Patent related clauses) ;p does it
> makes GPLv3 non free ?

No, it imposes duties on entites who control patents (or have patents
licenced to them) and distribute software as well as restricting
certain actions which are outside of the scope of running software.

Now, if you feel the above is non-free, please, please make a comment
on gplv3.fsf.org cogently and precisely laying out your theory for why
it isn't free so it can actually be addressed. (The same goes for
anyone else who has a problem, suggest, or anything else for part of
the GPLv3.)


Don Armstrong

-- 
"There's no problem so large it can't be solved by killing the user
off, deleting their files, closing their account and reporting their
REAL earnings to the IRS."
 -- The B.O.F.H..

http://www.donarmstrong.com  http://rzlab.ucr.edu


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: For those who care about the GR

[Peter Samuelson]

[Bill Allombert]
> > > There exist fields of endeavours that require mandatory
> > > encryption.  For example, if you work in security-sensitive
> > > field, you can be required to use a hard-drive with built-in
> > > encryption.  This technology certainly control who can read the
> > > disk.  In that case, you cannot copy a GFDL licensed document to
> > > your computer for reading it.

> > That's not at all what DFSG 6 means.  That's equivalent to
> > interpreting DFSG 6 to ban the GPL on the grounds that it
> > discriminates against proprietary software companies.

> No, the GPL does not ban proprietary software companies from using
> the software.

Exactly.  And neither does the GFDL ban people from using the
documentation if they work in a security field.

It's an equivalent case.  The DFSG does not say that any particular
requirements related to a field of endeavor must be honored.  This is
true whether that requirement is "in order to use this software, we
really need to be able to make proprietary derivatives" or "in order to
use this documentation, we really need to store it on encrypted media".


> > DFSG 6 does not say "anything a company might plausibly want to do,
> > our software must allow them to do".  It merely says that every
> > field of endeavor must be given the same rights.  Never mind
> > whether that set of rights is enough to satisfy any given party.
> 
> No it does not either. It says "The license must not restrict anyone
> from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor".  No
> mention of "giving the same right".

The whole point of the DFSG is to guarantee the giving of rights.
Perhaps a better wording would be "giving the rights outlined in the
rest of the DFSG" rather than "giving the same rights".  Either
interpretation does not change the effectiveness of your original
argument, though, so I have to wonder why you bring it up.  Unless you
have missed the connection between "not discriminating" and "giving
rights to people in every field", when the issue is about giving
rights.  I don't know how to explain that one better than I already
have.


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: For those who care about the GR

[Bill Allombert]

On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 01:08:46PM -0600, Peter Samuelson wrote:
> 
> [Bill Allombert]
> > > > There exist fields of endeavours that require mandatory
> > > > encryption.  For example, if you work in security-sensitive
> > > > field, you can be required to use a hard-drive with built-in
> > > > encryption.  This technology certainly control who can read the
> > > > disk.  In that case, you cannot copy a GFDL licensed document to
> > > > your computer for reading it.
> 
> > > That's not at all what DFSG 6 means.  That's equivalent to
> > > interpreting DFSG 6 to ban the GPL on the grounds that it
> > > discriminates against proprietary software companies.
> 
> > No, the GPL does not ban proprietary software companies from using
> > the software.
> 
> Exactly.  And neither does the GFDL ban people from using the
> documentation if they work in a security field.

The GFDL does ban them: they are not allowed to copy the document on
their computer so they cannot read it.

> It's an equivalent case.  The DFSG does not say that any particular
> requirements related to a field of endeavor must be honored.  This is
> true whether that requirement is "in order to use this software, we
> really need to be able to make proprietary derivatives" or "in order to
> use this documentation, we really need to store it on encrypted media".

The GPL allows you to make proprietary derivatives as long as you do not
distribute them.

This section is about usage not distribution. It says "making use of
the program" not "redistribute the program".

> > > DFSG 6 does not say "anything a company might plausibly want to do,
> > > our software must allow them to do".  It merely says that every
> > > field of endeavor must be given the same rights.  Never mind
> > > whether that set of rights is enough to satisfy any given party.
> > 
> > No it does not either. It says "The license must not restrict anyone
> > from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor".  No
> > mention of "giving the same right".
> 
> The whole point of the DFSG is to guarantee the giving of rights.
> Perhaps a better wording would be "giving the rights outlined in the
> rest of the DFSG" rather than "giving the same rights".  Either

But it still does not say "giving the rights outlined in the rest of the DFSG",
it says "The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the
program in a specific field of endeavor".

Cheers,
-- 
Bill. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Imagine a large red swirl here.


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

Re: Amendment: GFDL is compatible with DFSG

[Romain Francoise]

FWIW, I second the amendment quoted below.

Anton Zinoviev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> GNU Free Documentation License protects the freedom,
> it is compatible with Debian Free Software Guidelines
> ~~

> (0) Summary

> This is the position of Debian Project about the GNU Free
> Documentation License as published by the Free Software Foundation:

>We consider that works licensed under GNU Free Documentation
>License version 1.2 do fully comply both with the requirements and
>the spirit of Debian Free Software Guidelines.

> Within Debian community there has been a significant amount of
> uncertainty about the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL), and
> whether it is, in fact, a "free" license.  This document attempts to
> explain why Debian's answer is "yes".

> (1) What is the GFDL?

> The GFDL is a license written by the Free Software Foundation, who use
> it as a license for their own documentation, and promote it to others. It
> is also used as Wikipedia's license. To quote the GFDL's Preamble:

>The purpose of this License is to make a manual, textbook, or other
>functional and useful document "free" in the sense of freedom: to
>assure everyone the effective freedom to copy and redistribute it,
>with or without modifying it, either commercially or
>noncommercially. Secondarily, this License preserves for the author
>and publisher a way to get credit for their work, while not being
>considered responsible for modifications made by others.

>This License is a kind of "copyleft", which means that derivative
>works of the document must themselves be free in the same sense. It
>complements the GNU General Public License, which is a copyleft
>license designed for free software.

> (2) The Invariant Sections - Main Objection Against GFDL

> One of the most widespread objections against GFDL is that GFDL
> permits works covered under it to include certain sections, designated
> as "invariant".  The text inside such sections can not be changed or
> removed from the work in future.

> GFDL places considerable constraints on the purpose of texts that can
> be included in an invariant section.  According to GFDL all invariant
> sections must be also "secondary sections", i.e. they meet the
> following definition

>A "Secondary Section" is a named appendix or a front-matter section
>of the Document that deals exclusively with the relationship of the
>publishers or authors of the Document to the Document's overall
>subject (or to related matters) and contains nothing that could
>fall directly within that overall subject. [...]  The relationship
>could be a matter of historical connection with the subject or with
>related matters, or of legal, commercial, philosophical, ethical or
>political position regarding them.

> Consequently the secondary sections (and in particular the invariant
> sections) are allowed to include only personal position of the authors
> or the publishers to some subject.  It is useless and unethical to
> modify somebody else's personal position; in some cases this is even
> illegal.  For such texts Richard Stallman (the founder of the Free
> Software Movement and the GNU project and author of GFDL) says [1]:

>The whole point of those works is that they tell you what somebody
>thinks or what somebody saw or what somebody believes. To modify
>them is to misrepresent the authors; so modifying these works is
>not a socially useful activity. And so verbatim copying is the only
>thing that people really need to be allowed to do.

> This feature of GFDL can be opposed to the following requirement of
> Debian Free Software Guidelines:

>3. Derived Works

>The license must allow modifications and derived works, and must
>allow them to be distributed under the same terms as the license of
>the original software.

> It is naive to think that in order to fulfil this requirement of DFSG
> the free licenses have to permit arbitrary modifications.  There are
> several licenses that Debian has always acknowledged as free that
> impose some limitations on the permitted modifications.  For example
> the GNU General Public License contains the following clause:

>If the modified program normally reads commands interactively when
>run, you must cause it, when started running for such interactive
>use in the most ordinary way, to print or display an announcement
>including an appropriate copyright notice and a notice that there
>is no warranty (or else, saying that you provide a warranty) and
>that users may redistribute the program under these conditions, and
>telling the user how to view a copy of this License.

> The licenses that contain the so called "advertising clause" give us
> another example:

>All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this
>software must display the following 

Re: Amendment: GFDL is compatible with DFSG

[Anton Zinoviev]

On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 04:32:09PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> 
> If you then remove most of the content from that document so that only
> the relevant bits for a manual page and those secondary sections are
> left behind, then it could very well be that 10% of the resulting text
> is your technical documentation while 90% of your text is that section
> about software freedom.
> 
> At this point, you can no longer reasonably say that the "Document's
> overall subject" is the technical documentation; rather, at that point
> the Document's overall subject will be software freedom.

The overall subject can be software freedom but not necesarily in all
cases and certainly not in the case with the man-page.  One can not
use simple quantity calculations in order to determine what the
overall subject of a book is.

I have a book with poetry but the total length of its prefaces is more
than the total length of all poems.  I have also a book containing
relatively short medieval story and a very long preface.  The titles
of the books are the title of the poetry and the title of the medieval
story and most people who buy these books do not read the prefaces.
In that situation it is very reasonably to say that the "Document's
overal subject" is the poetry and the medieval text and not the
literary analisys from the prefaces.  I havent checked how these two
books are classified in the libraries but I am pretty sure that the
libraries will classify these books as a book with poetry and a book
with medieval text disregarding the prefaces.

> > but that is not relevant here, because you don't have to include all
> > invariant sections in every single man-page.
> 
> Does not follow. You have to include them all;

In the specific case for the man-pages I think that the overal subject
of every man-page will be its technical contents, no matter how short
it is and how long the invariant sections we have to include are.

> whether or not you have to include them on every manpage in a given
> package is not relevant.

It would be inconvenient if we had to include all invariant sections
and the text of GFDL in every single man-page.  Fortunately, we don't
have to.

> > The point is there is no practical difference whether the GNU
> > Manifesto is placed in the preamble of the license or it is placed in
> > an invariant section.
> 
> There is; see also Kalle's reply.

There is no practical difference between the final results, the only
differences are between the methods used to achieve the results.  In
both cases the result is that we have to distribute unmodifiable text
with personal opinion.  I agree with the Kalle's argument that "this
does not mean that we should accept unmodifiable sections elsewhere in
the works", but the question is why we shouldn't accept?  What basic
freedoms of our users we will protect by doing so?  What do we want to
achieve by refusing to accept them?

> > Anyway, the GNU project, GNOME, KDE and many other free software
> > developers consider and use GFDL as a free license.  Even if there are
> > different definitions of "Free Software" (and "Free Documentation")
> > most of them seem to acknowledge GFDL as free.
> 
> It is not because they think that the FDL is a free license that we have
> to agree.

If they think that something is a free license we have to agree
acording to our social contract ("we will be guided by the needs of
our users and the free software community").

There is however a reason, much more important than our social
contract, why we should agree with them.  It is because their opinion
is based on the basis that GFDL does not infringe any of the basic
freedoms for the users as they are described at
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html

So far I haven't seen any solid argument why the invariant sections
make GFDL a non-free license.  All we agree the third item of DFSG
does not require arbitrary modifications, all we agree that some
restrictions are admissible.  What makes the invariant sections not
admisible?  The usual answer is "acording to DFSG the license must
allow modifications".  But why would someone accept the restrictions
caused by the Advertising clause and not the restrictions caused by
the invariant sections?  I want to have some fundamental principle to
advise me in such cases but the only principle I know about is the
principle to protect the four basic freedoms of our users.  Acording
to that principle GFDL is free.

> > Not, at all.
> 
> ... because?

I'm sorry for being too short.  I answered in my previous email in the
paragraph next to that.

> > Acording to the licenses this is the choice here:
> > 
> > GPL: include CD-ROM or obligate myself to distribute the sources at
> >  minimal cost for three years
> > 
> > GFDL: include CD-ROM or maintain a website for one year
> 
> First, the GPL says "reasonable", not "minimal".

I don't understand this.

> Second, maintaining a website with the transparent versions of your
> opaque copies in such a w

GR proposal: GFDL with no Invariant Sections is free

[Fabian Fagerholm]

[ Bcc'ed to -project, -devel and -legal, any further discussion and/or
seconds on -vote, please. ]

After reading all the recent posts about the GFDL on debian-vote, I
hereby propose the following General Resolution and ask for seconds.

--8<--
The Debian Project asserts that

Works licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as
published by the Free Software Foundation (GNU FDL), are free in
accordance with the Debian Free Software Guidelines (DFSG), if and only
if the work is licensed using the following options of the license:

no Invariant Sections,
no Front-Cover Texts, and
no Back-Cover Texts

If any other options are used, the work is not free in accordance with
the DFSG.

This General Resolution partly reverts an earlier decision by the
Release Management team, taken under delegation in accordance with the
Debian Constitution, to remove all works licensed under the GNU FDL from
the main section of the Debian archive.
--8<--

(The following is not part of the GR proposal text.)

For this to work, an amendment which says the RM decision was correct is
needed. I will second such an amendment given it is not overly broad or
ambiguous.
(That amendment should be simple to write: "Works licensed under the GNU
Free Documentation License are not free in accordance with the Debian
Free Software Guidelines" or something similar.)

Manoj: given this proposal receives enough seconds, will you fast-track
it to appear before the "Why the GNU Free Documentation License is not
suitable for Debian main" GR?

-- 
Fabian Fagerholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
In necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas.


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

Re: GR proposal: GFDL with no Invariant Sections is free

[martin f krafft]

also sprach Fabian Fagerholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006.01.23.2241 +0100]:
> After reading all the recent posts about the GFDL on debian-vote, I
> hereby propose the following General Resolution and ask for seconds.

I don't have the time these days to follow the entire discussion.
How does your proposal differ from Adeodato's?

-- 
Please do not send copies of list mail to me; I read the list!
 
 .''`. martin f. krafft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
: :'  :proud Debian developer and author: http://debiansystem.info
`. `'`
  `-  Debian - when you have better things to do than fixing a system
 
Invalid/expired PGP (sub)keys? Use subkeys.pgp.net as keyserver!
 
people with narrow minds usually have broad tongues.


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature (GPG/PGP)

Re: For those who care about the GR

[Graham Wilson]

On Sat, Jan 21, 2006 at 02:52:01PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>   Q1.1) Are GFDL licensed works without invariant texts non-free?
> 
>Well, according to the RM team, and some developers (full
>disclosure: myself included), yes, they are, even if there is no
>explicit infraction of specific portions of our guidelines.
> 
>The release team, a delegated body, has unequivocally stated that
>the GFDL licensed works are non-free, with no codicils and riders
>about absence of invariant clauses.
> 
>Absent any other action, I am, by my own analysis, and the actions
>of the RM team, going to treat these works as non-free -- and this
>impacts issue 2.

What sections of the DFSG do you think GFDL documents without invariant
sections fail?

-- 
gram


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

Re: For those who care about the GR

[Steve Langasek]

On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 12:40:30PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 22, 2006 at 03:42:39PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:

> > > And what? If someone tries to bring through a GR stating that
> > >  MS office warez can be distributed in main since it meets the DFSG,
> > >  one might rule that as frivolous and a waste of time.

> > I'm not convinced the constitution gives the secretary the power to make
> > such a ruling.  There are no provisions in the constitution for the Project
> > Secretary to dismiss a GR -- *even* a GR stating that the Debian Project
> > holds the value of pi to be 3 -- so long as the GR has the requisite number
> > of seconds.

> I suspect the Secretary could effectively do so by declining to take the
> vote under Section 2.1.1 ("[n]othing in this constitution imposes an
> obligation on anyone to do work for the Project.") It seems then that
> the secretary has no obligation to actually perform 4.2.3 or 7.1.1.

Which would be grounds for removing the secretary from office, if necessary
by appealing to the SPI board under 7.2. of the constitution.

> > In the present case, I understand that the proposed ballot option is
> > ambiguous wrt whether it constitutes an implicit amendment to the foundation
> > docs, and that in the absence of clarification (in the form of a re-worded
> > proposal) on the part of the proposer, it is the project secretary's
> > prerogative to specify a supermajority requirement.

> I think that under 7.1.3, it'd be the Secretary's job/power to determine
> supermajority requirement regardless of what the proposed ballot option
> says.

Correct, it is the secretary's job to determine supermajority requirement in
all cases.  It would also be an abuse of power to establish a supermajority
requirement other than that specified by the constitution.

-- 
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: GR proposal: GFDL with no Invariant Sections is free

[Russ Allbery]

martin f krafft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> also sprach Fabian Fagerholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006.01.23.2241 +0100]:

>> After reading all the recent posts about the GFDL on debian-vote, I
>> hereby propose the following General Resolution and ask for seconds.

> I don't have the time these days to follow the entire discussion.
> How does your proposal differ from Adeodato's?

It doesn't launch into the whole project statement parts and it
specifically says that it's intended to reverse a delegate decision about
DFDG-freeness rather than leaving it unclear whether it's overriding the
DFSG requirement.

In other words, the differences are primarily technical (in my view), but
the wording is clearer and less ambiguous about what it's trying to
accomplish.

-- 
Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED])   


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

Re: Amendment: GFDL is compatible with DFSG

[Wouter Verhelst]

On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 11:40:39PM +0200, Anton Zinoviev wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 04:32:09PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > 
> > If you then remove most of the content from that document so that only
> > the relevant bits for a manual page and those secondary sections are
> > left behind, then it could very well be that 10% of the resulting text
> > is your technical documentation while 90% of your text is that section
> > about software freedom.
> > 
> > At this point, you can no longer reasonably say that the "Document's
> > overall subject" is the technical documentation; rather, at that point
> > the Document's overall subject will be software freedom.
> 
> The overall subject can be software freedom but not necesarily in all
> cases and certainly not in the case with the man-page.  One can not
> use simple quantity calculations in order to determine what the
> overall subject of a book is.

I think you'll find you'll have a hard time convincing anyone that a
text that consists for 90% of a "secondary section" about free software
and for 10% of technical documentation that the "overall subject" of
that text is something technical.

> I have a book with poetry but the total length of its prefaces is more
> than the total length of all poems.  I have also a book containing
> relatively short medieval story and a very long preface.

Can we stick to technical documentation? Medieval stories and poems are
nice, but they're fairly special-case texts, and in any case are not
likely to be licensed under the GFDL (especially not the medieval
texts).

> > > but that is not relevant here, because you don't have to include all
> > > invariant sections in every single man-page.
> > 
> > Does not follow. You have to include them all;
> 
> In the specific case for the man-pages I think that the overal subject
> of every man-page will be its technical contents, no matter how short
> it is and how long the invariant sections we have to include are.

Still isn't relevant. If you have three very short manpages, or six very
short manpages, and then one copy of each of the invariant sections, and
the cumulative length of the invariant sections ends up being larger
than the cumulative length of the manpages, the question will arise what
the overall subject is.

[...]
> > > The point is there is no practical difference whether the GNU
> > > Manifesto is placed in the preamble of the license or it is placed in
> > > an invariant section.
> > 
> > There is; see also Kalle's reply.
> 
> There is no practical difference between the final results, the only
> differences are between the methods used to achieve the results.  In
> both cases the result is that we have to distribute unmodifiable text
> with personal opinion.  I agree with the Kalle's argument that "this
> does not mean that we should accept unmodifiable sections elsewhere in
> the works", but the question is why we shouldn't accept?  What basic
> freedoms of our users we will protect by doing so?

The freedom to modify the text as they see fit.

Note that you even have the freedom to take a license text and modify
it, including any preamble such a license text might have. The only
thing you're not allowed to do with such a license text is claim that
that license text applies to the software as you received it.

> > > Anyway, the GNU project, GNOME, KDE and many other free software
> > > developers consider and use GFDL as a free license.  Even if there are
> > > different definitions of "Free Software" (and "Free Documentation")
> > > most of them seem to acknowledge GFDL as free.
> > 
> > It is not because they think that the FDL is a free license that we have
> > to agree.
> 
> If they think that something is a free license we have to agree
> acording to our social contract ("we will be guided by the needs of
> our users and the free software community").

"To be guided by" does not imply "to blindly follow whatever they say,
without having our own opinion".

Moreover, our definition of Freedom is laid out in the Debian Free
Software Guidelines.

> There is however a reason, much more important than our social
> contract, why we should agree with them.  It is because their opinion
> is based on the basis that GFDL does not infringe any of the basic
> freedoms for the users as they are described at
> http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html

The relevance of GNU's four basic freedoms is absolutely zero in a
Debian context.

According to our own definition of software freedom, the DFSG, the GFDL
is not free.

> So far I haven't seen any solid argument why the invariant sections
> make GFDL a non-free license.  All we agree the third item of DFSG
> does not require arbitrary modifications,

I'm not entirely sure I understand you correctly here, so, just for
clarity: are you saying that everyone agrees that the third item of the
DFSG does not require arbitrary modifications?

If so, then I would submit that you're wrong. I, for one, understand
that section

Re: For those who care about the GR

[Russ Allbery]

Graham Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> What sections of the DFSG do you think GFDL documents without invariant
> sections fail?

I've been thinking a lot about this issue, and I think it basically
revolves around one's interpretation of the first two points of the DFSG:

| Free Redistribution
| 
| The license of a Debian component may not restrict any party from
| selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate
| software distribution containing programs from several different
| sources. The license may not require a royalty or other fee for such
| sale.
| 
| Source Code
| 
| The program must include source code, and must allow distribution in
| source code as well as compiled form.

The question is, basically, what do "allow distribution" and "may not
restrict" mean?  To take a more obvious example, consider a software
package released under a license that says:

  Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute this software and its
  documentation for any purpose and without fee is hereby granted,
  provided that distribution of the software is only done on Mondays and
  the software is not redistributed on any other day of the week.

Obviously, the Debian project could not redistribute such software for
purely practical reasons, but is that license DFSG-free?

I don't buy the arguments from "No Discrimination Against Fields of
Endeavor."  I think the logical argument required to conclude that this
provision would fail that test based on fields of endeavor that require
working on other days of the week is too convoluted to hold up.

My feeling is that the first two points of the DFSG imply some sort of
unstated "reasonableness" standard on the restrictions on distribution.
We allow the GPL, so obviously we allow *some* restrictions, such as the
GPL requirements about accompanying source code.  Equally obviously, in my
opinion, we don't allow *any* restriction that's compatible with the rest
of the DFSG; I think my Monday-only license is compatible with the rest of
the DFSG (and even if not, I think it's obvious that you could fiddle with
such an idea to come up with one that is), but I still think that it fails
the DFSG as a whole.

Assuming you buy this argument, the next obvious question is then whether
the restrictions on redistribution in the GFDL fail that fuzzy
"reasonableness" test.

-- 
Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED])   


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

Re: GR proposal: GFDL with no Invariant Sections is free

[Andreas Barth]

* Fabian Fagerholm ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060123 22:44]:
> This General Resolution partly reverts an earlier decision by the
> Release Management team, taken under delegation in accordance with the
> Debian Constitution, to remove all works licensed under the GNU FDL from
> the main section of the Debian archive.

Sorry, but what do you want to change? If you want to revert a
delegates' decision, you need to specify which.

First of all, I doubt that the release team did any decision on that, as
a decision means there is more than one option. According to the
constitution reading of the release team, there is however only one
option. If you disagree with the constitution reading, feel free to
apply to the secretary as per 7.1.3 of the constitution and/or make a GR
to change the constitution.

Also, there are two "decisions" that you could refer to: There is the
"decision" that documents in main needs to adhere to the DFSG (see
http://release.debian.org/etch_rc_policy.txt). If you think this is
wrong, please make a statement like "The decision in ... that all in
main and contrib must meet the DFSG is reverted for documents (licensed
under the GFDL)".

Or you could refer to the "decision" that the GFDL is considered as
non-DFSG-free. Than please say this.

Or there could be any other meaning of your text.



Cheers,
Andi
-- 
  http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/


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

Re: For those who care about the GR

[Peter Samuelson]

[Bill Allombert]
> > > No, the GPL does not ban proprietary software companies from
> > > using the software.
> > 
> > Exactly.  And neither does the GFDL ban people from using the
> > documentation if they work in a security field.
> 
> The GFDL does ban them: they are not allowed to copy the document on
> their computer so they cannot read it.

Don't be ridiculous.  Nowhere in the GFDL does it say "people working
in security-related fields cannot use this work".  It doesn't even say
"people working in security-related fields cannot copy this work to
their hard drives".  Nobody is forcing you to encrypt your filesystems.

Let me try another analogy, since you seem to be having a lot of
trouble with this point.  There may be some fields of endeavor which
require the use of Windows 2000, because most of the software they need
only runs on Windows 2000.  This does not imply that all our software
must build and run correctly on Windows 2000 in order to comply with
DFSG 6.  And it doesn't mean that Debian as a whole violates DFSG 6 by
not running that company's Windows applications.

It is your choice to encrypt your hard disk, or to run Windows 2000.
Or your company's choice.  But it has nothing to do with
"discrimination against fields of endeavor".

> But it still does not say "giving the rights outlined in the rest of
> the DFSG", it says "The license must not restrict anyone from making
> use of the program in a specific field of endeavor".

When you're trying to break down the GFDL, please pick something other
than DFSG 6.  It doesn't mean what you think it means.  And I can't
believe I'm still having this conversation.


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Amendment: GFDL is compatible with DFSG

[Peter Samuelson]

[Russ Allbery]
> If we're going to put all the options on the ballot, let's go ahead
> and put them *all* on the ballot so that no significant group of DDs
> can later claim that their opinion wasn't represented by the choices.

I think everyone is forgetting this one (IMHO pretty reasonable)
option:

- Works licensed under the terms of the GNU FDL but with no
  invariant-foo comply (or may comply) with the DFSG, but we still
  refuse to distribute them, because of the significant practical
  problems that this would cause both for us and for our users.

The notable practical problems I'm alluding to would include:

- All Debian mirrors must retain source packages one year after the
  corresponding binary packages are deleted

- Debian CD vendors must either ship source CDs to all customers
  regardless of whether a customer wants them, or maintain their own
  download mirrors.

- Neither Debian, nor the mirror network, nor the users, can use
  rsync-over-ssh to update their CD images or individual packages.

I think any one of these points is serious enough to reject GNU FDL
works regardless of whether they can pass a strict reading of the DFSG.
In other words, the DFSG is a *necessary* but not necessarily
*sufficient* hurdle.

Peter


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Amendment: GFDL is compatible with DFSG

[Anthony Towns]

On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 01:45:40AM +0200, Anton Zinoviev wrote:
> Hereby I am proposing an amendment to the GR about GFDL opened by
> Anthony Towns [Sun, 01 Jan 2006 15:02:04 +1000]

(The proposal actually became formal on the 12th, and that's the one you're
amending, fwiw)

> GNU Free Documentation License protects the freedom,
> it is compatible with Debian Free Software Guidelines
> ~~

Obviously, presuming this amendment achieves sufficient seconds, I don't
accept it as an amendment to the original proposal, thus it should appear
as a separate option on the ballot.

If I'd been making that amendment, I'd've made the amended resolution
be something like "The GFDL is DFSG-free." and given all the text as
rationale. YMMV obviously :)

> It is naive to think that in order to fulfil this requirement of DFSG

Calling your fellow developers "naive" isn't terribly nice, you sell
out... ;)

> Consequently the license requires distribution of the transparent form
> ALONG with each opaque copy but not IN OR WITH each opaque copy.

I wish the folks who believe this would just ask for a clarification
from RMS or Eben Moglen. It'd be a lot more convincing. Anyone?

> It is a fact confirmed by Richard Stallman, author of GFDL,

Cite, please.

Cheers,
aj



signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: GR proposal: GFDL with no Invariant Sections is free

[Walter Landry]

Manoj wrote:
> So, I am seeking arguments and guidance from the developer
>  body whether issue 1 can, and should, be decidable by a general
>  resolution, or whether the freeness of the GFDL licensed works
>  without invariant clauses is incontrovertibly non-free, as the
>  license is currently written.

Whether the GFDL conflicts with the DFSG is not a matter of opinion.
It either conflicts or it doesn't.  The question is really who decides
whether it conflicts.  I would say that it depends on what is being
asked.  If the question is whether something can be uploaded to main,
then it is the ftp-masters decision.  If it is the question of what
the release criteria are for the next release, then it is the RM's
decision.  Similarly, if it is the question of whether a GR requires a
supermajority, then it is up to the secretary [1].

They have to make a decision, so they do not have the luxury of
waiting until something is completely clear in one direction or
another.  So what standard should they use?  I would argue that there
is always a more restrained option A (reject the package, require a
supermajority) and a less restrained option B.  Given that the actions
of the delegates should be more restrained (so they may inherently
favor option A), there are two standards that come to mind for B to
prevail

  1) Preponderance of evidence: Option B more likely true than option
 A other, but neither need be clear cut.  Options A and B are
 symmetric.

  2) Beyond a reasonable doubt: No reasonable person who has studied
 the issue would say that A is true.

Which standard to use is not specified in the constitution.

Cheers,
Walter Landry
[EMAIL PROTECTED]


[1] Appendix A3.3.4 of the constitution says

  In cases of doubt the Project Secretary shall decide on matters of
  procedure.


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

Re: Amendment: GFDL is compatible with DFSG

[Peter Samuelson]

[Anton Zinoviev]
> If Debian decided that GFDL is not free, this would mean that Debian
> attempted to impose on the free software community alternative
> meaning of "free software", effectively violating its Social Contract
> with the free software community.

That does not follow at all.  If the GNOME Foundation chooses to
license documents as GFDL, it does not mean they believe it is a free
software license.  It can just as easily signify that they do not
believe documentation should be free software.

As for "violating its Social Contract", that's just rhetoric.  The
Contract assumes that our users are entitled to free software; if
certain users who write documentation for other projects decide that
they don't care about free software, that's beside the point.

>You must either include a machine-readable Transparent copy ALONG
>WITH each Opaque copy

Yeah, "along with" means "with".

>or state IN OR WITH each Opaque copy a computer-network location
>from which the general network-using public has access to download
>using public-standard network protocols a complete Transparent
>copy of the Document, free of added material.

So "free of added material" means that if you want to offer CD images
for download, you can't just offer source CD images, or even Debian
source packages - you have to offer individual documents in source
form.  For at least a year after you take down the binary CD images
from your site.

People should think long and hard about this requirement, independent
of whether it is DFSG-compliant.  Think about the implications for the
ftp.debian.org mirror network, and for CD and DVD vendors.  It's a
pretty significant added burden for everybody - is it worth it?  This
is about more than DFSG compliance.  A lot of things can be
DFSG-compliant yet could still cause serious practical problems if
Debian were to ship them.


> It is a fact confirmed by Richard Stallman, author of GFDL, and
> testified by the common practice, that as long as you make the source
> and binaries available so that the users can see what's available and
> take what they want, you have done what is required of you.  It is up
> to the user whether to download the transparent form.

I thought that was what RMS said about the *GPL*.  Did he also say that
about the GFDL?  When and where?

Also, what RMS says about the GFDL matters very little when
distributing material not copyrighted by him or the FSF.  What matters
then is the interpretation by the author of the material.  This is why
it's important to read what a license says, not just what someone says
a license is supposed to mean.



signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Amendment: GFDL is compatible with DFSG

[Anthony Towns]

On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 09:35:32AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Adeodato Sim? <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > * Russ Allbery [Mon, 23 Jan 2006 09:17:14 -0800]:
> >> If we're going to put all the options on the ballot, let's go ahead and
> >> put them *all* on the ballot so that no significant group of DDs can
> >> later claim that their opinion wasn't represented by the choices.
> >   Latelly, I'm thinking that this (in a similar fashion to Manoj's mail)
> >   is the best option. The only problem I see is that Manoj's mail seems
> >   to want to attach a position statement to each option, and that can be
> >   divisive. I'm starting to see the benefits of a prior vote...
> Me too.  The question raised by the original proposal here seems to be
> more one of whether we want to make a public policy statement about an
> issue already decided by delegates.  

I don't think that makes any sense; ignoring the fact I don't think that
"GFDL is non-free" is a "delegate's decision", I don't think it makes
any sense to take an action on this without offering an explanation of
why at the same time. Removing GFDL documents from main has been Debian's
intention for many years now -- whether as semi-official future release
policy, as a scheduled change to the social contract, or as an explicit
policy from the release team; if we're changing that, we definitely need
to explain why, not just leave it unexplained for another month.

Cheers,
aj




signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Amendment: GFDL is compatible with DFSG

[Graham Wilson]

On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 07:59:44PM -0600, Peter Samuelson wrote:
> People should think long and hard about this requirement, independent
> of whether it is DFSG-compliant.  Think about the implications for the
> ftp.debian.org mirror network, and for CD and DVD vendors.  It's a
> pretty significant added burden for everybody - is it worth it?  This
> is about more than DFSG compliance.  A lot of things can be
> DFSG-compliant yet could still cause serious practical problems if
> Debian were to ship them.

The implications are definitely worth considering; just not here. This
vote will be about whether the documentation is DFSG free or not, not
about whether we choose to not distribute GFDL documents because of
other reasons.

-- 
gram


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

Re: GR proposal: GFDL with no Invariant Sections is free

[Fabian Fagerholm]

On Tue, 2006-01-24 at 00:02 +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Fabian Fagerholm ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060123 22:44]:
> > This General Resolution partly reverts an earlier decision by the
> > Release Management team, taken under delegation in accordance with the
> > Debian Constitution, to remove all works licensed under the GNU FDL from
> > the main section of the Debian archive.
> 
> Sorry, but what do you want to change? If you want to revert a
> delegates' decision, you need to specify which.

"... an earlier decision by the Release Management team, ..., to remove
all works licensed under the GNU FDL from the main section of the Debian
archive."

There is no other sensible way of referring to the decision in question.
It is also not the main point of the GR proposal text. It is a
consequence of the main point, which is that GNU FDL without Invariant
Sections, is DFSG-free. (Which in turn may or may not be an opinion that
I share.)

> First of all, I doubt that the release team did any decision on that, as
> a decision means there is more than one option. According to the
> constitution reading of the release team, there is however only one
> option. If you disagree with the constitution reading, feel free to
> apply to the secretary as per 7.1.3 of the constitution and/or make a GR
> to change the constitution.

In several previous messages to this list, the Secretary has indicated
in different ways that he does not see this as a clear-cut issue. In
fact, in one message [0] he included a hypothetical option similar to
this GR proposal. The difference is that this proposal says nothing
about public statements, which is another issue. The reason is clarity.
Deciding on multiple things at once causes confusion.

> Also, there are two "decisions" that you could refer to: There is the
> "decision" that documents in main needs to adhere to the DFSG (see
> http://release.debian.org/etch_rc_policy.txt). If you think this is
> wrong, please make a statement like "The decision in ... that all in
> main and contrib must meet the DFSG is reverted for documents (licensed
> under the GFDL)".
> 
> Or you could refer to the "decision" that the GFDL is considered as
> non-DFSG-free. Than please say this.

As far as I can see, the editorial amendments to the Social Contract by
GR 2004-003 [1] clarified that the DFSG indeed applies to all components
of the Debian system.

After that, GR 2004-004 [2] decided to temporarily suspend GR 2004-003
until after Sarge was released.

Given these two decisions, the RM team has published the release policy
for etch [3] and a document giving details about removal of non-free
documentation [4]. As you say, the release policy for etch is indeed no
decision with regard to non-free documentation, it's a direct and
logical consequence of GRs 2004-003 and 2004-004.

The missing part of the puzzle is the answer to the question "does the
GNU FDL meet the DFSG?" -- the second decision listed in your message.
The RM team has made that decision for themselves in [4], which is
possible since they have that power by delegation.

The point of this GR proposal is to find out whether that decision has
the support of the Debian Developers and thus by the project at large. I
imagine it would be very reassuring for the RM team if a GR showed such
support. On the other hand, if the opposite is shown, then the
responsibility lies with the Developers, not the individuals of the RM
team.

Also, this does not affect the Project's ability to issue statements
about the problematic nature of the GFDL.


[0] http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2006/01/msg00173.html
[1] http://www.debian.org/vote/2004/vote_003
[2] http://www.debian.org/vote/2004/vote_004
[3] http://release.debian.org/etch_rc_policy.txt
[4] http://release.debian.org/removing-non-free-documentation

> Or there could be any other meaning of your text.

I'm not convinced of that. :)

Cheers,
-- 
Fabian Fagerholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>


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

Re: Amendment: GFDL is compatible with DFSG

[Fabian Fagerholm]

On Tue, 2006-01-24 at 13:58 +1300, Anthony Towns wrote:
> I don't think that makes any sense; ignoring the fact I don't think that
> "GFDL is non-free" is a "delegate's decision", I don't think it makes
> any sense to take an action on this without offering an explanation of
> why at the same time. Removing GFDL documents from main has been Debian's
> intention for many years now -- whether as semi-official future release
> policy, as a scheduled change to the social contract, or as an explicit
> policy from the release team; if we're changing that, we definitely need
> to explain why, not just leave it unexplained for another month.

Having a GR that explicitly says "GNU FDL is free/non-free/free in
certain configurations" will make it easier to make a statement that a
large portion of the project can agree with and support.

The question of whether GNU FDL is DFSG-free is one that concerns the
Debian community (including its users and other non-DD affiliates) only.
This is "our problem".

The complicated and problematic nature of the GNU FDL, however, concerns
a larger group. It includes the FSF, upstream documentation authors,
non-Debian users that come in contact with GNU FDL material, and so on.
A public statement should appeal to this entire group, should detail the
problems with the GNU FDL, should invite others to discuss these
problems and seek to remedy them, and should offer advice to people
considering the use of this license until the problems are remedied. The
GR proposal that you have submitted does these things. But it should not
be mixed with our own decision about including or not including GNU FDL
material in our distribution.

This is regardless of the outcome of such a GR.

Cheers,
-- 
Fabian Fagerholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>


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

Re: GR proposal: GFDL with no Invariant Sections is free

[Henning Makholm]

Scripsit Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

> Whether the GFDL conflicts with the DFSG is not a matter of opinion.
> It either conflicts or it doesn't.  The question is really who decides
> whether it conflicts.

It now becomes time for the obligatory reminder that

The G in DFSG stands for "guidelines".

Because they are only guidelines, I think we as a project are free to
deviate (in either direction) from a literal reading of the guidelines
when we decide whether a particular piece of software should be
considered free, if we have a good enough reason. Which is good
because sometimes the guidelines *do not have* an unambiguous literal
reading, and the most literal readings often lead to completely
spurious results which we have a sound tradition for correcting
unceremoniously. The guidelines were never meant to be anything *but*
guidelines, and so they are not phrased carefully enough to work
reliably as a bright-line test.

The decision whether or not to consider some software free *is*
eventually a matter of opinion, even though that opinion should be
guided by the DFSG. As such, it can be settled by GR.

-- 
Henning Makholm  "En tapper tinsoldat. En dame i
 spagat. Du er en lykkelig mand ..."


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

Re: Amendment: GFDL is compatible with DFSG

[Josselin Mouette]

Le lundi 23 janvier 2006 à 01:45 +0200, Anton Zinoviev a écrit :
> GNU Free Documentation License protects the freedom,
> it is compatible with Debian Free Software Guidelines

And I thought Debian politics stayed away from populism...
-- 
 .''`.   Josselin Mouette/\./\
: :' :   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
`. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED]
   `-  Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom

Re: DFSG, GFDL, and position statementsd

[Josselin Mouette]

Le dimanche 22 janvier 2006 à 13:13 -0600, Manoj Srivastava a écrit :
> A) The delegates decision that the GFDL licensed works are non-free is
>wrong, the GFDL meets the DFSG. Override the delegated decision,
>and  issue the following statement "..."
> B) The delegates decision that the GFDL licensed works are non-free
>does not hold for works without invariant sections, modify the
>delegated decision to allow works with no invariant sections in
>main, and issue the following statement "..."

I fail to see why these positions don't require 3:1 supermajority. As
currently, no sane interpretation of the DFSG can lead to such
statements, especially for A), we would have to modify the DFSG to fit
the requirement.
-- 
 .''`.   Josselin Mouette/\./\
: :' :   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
`. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED]
   `-  Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom