Re: Amendment: GFDL is compatible with DFSG
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] I wish to thank everybody who will support this amendment, especially I wish to thank those who second it. I wish to thank also the members of the Debian mailing list at lists.uni-sofia.bg, who assisted me with the text. Anton Zinoviev --- GNU Free Documentation License protects the freedom, it is compatible with Debian Free Software Guidelines ~~ [...remained deleted for brevity...] i second this amendment. it makes perfect sense. this whole stupid mess about the GFDL allegedly being a problem was cooked up by a bunch of extremist nutcases who want to force the Free Software Foundation to do their bidding, no matter how idiotic. these nutcases have been misusing the debian organisation in this and similarly moronic ways for years. it's time to tell them where to go and to stop turning debian into a bad joke. craig -- craig sanders [EMAIL PROTECTED] (part time cyborg) signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Amendment: GFDL is compatible with DFSG
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: (2) The Invariant Sections - Main Objection Against GFDL [...] This argument has been brought up a number of times already, but it does not hold. no, it holds perfectly well. the trouble is that nutcases aren't in the least bit swayed by reason or logic - they have their own bizarre and psychotic mis-interpretation of reality and nothing, NOTHING, is ever going to sway them from it. You must either include a machine-readable Transparent copy ALONG with each Opaque copy, 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. Consequently the license requires distribution of the transparent form ALONG with each opaque copy but not IN OR WITH each opaque copy. 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. That would indeed seem to be the intent of that section, but it is not what is written. It says that you *must* either include a Transparent copy along with each opaque copy (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. As written, it is not enough to point the recipient to an available copy that they can take if they want to; you must either include it, or maintain a website. bullshit! it says nothing of the kind. as usual, you extremist nutcases have no hesitation about lying if it will further your moronic agenda. it says that, along with an opaque copy, you must include EITHER a transparent copy or state the publicly accessible computer network location where the user can obtain a transparent copy. it says NOTHING AT ALL that could even remotely be interpreted as saying you must operate or maintain that site yourself. all it says is that you have to refer users to it. and even if it did - so what? it's hardly an onerous or unreasonable clause, nor does it in any way restrict freedom. Not everyone has the ability to do that. If I print out a copy of a manual that I wish to give to a friend, then I do not want to be forced to write him a CD-ROM, too; and I'm not sure that I want to maintain a copy on my webspace, either (in my particular case that shouldn't be a problem, but I can imagine that not everyone has multiple gigabytes of diskspace on their webserver) i'll say it again, and maybe it will sink in (a probably forlon hope): 1. you don't have to, you just need to give a URL. 2. even if you did, it doesn't impinge on freedom [...] (4) Digital Rights Management [...] In fact, the license says only this: You may not use technical measures to obstruct or control the reading or further copying of the copies you make or distribute This clause disallows the distribution or storage of copies on DRM-protected media only if a result of that action will be that the reading or further copying of the copies is obstructed or controlled. It is not supposed to refer the use of encryption or file access control on your own copy. No; however, as written it can be interpreted as such. only by a nutcase with an agenda. normal people (including lawyers and judges) wouldn't have such an insane and insupportable interpretation. that's because normal people rely on facts. and evidence. they don't just make up whatever crap they need to suit their argument. We all agree that this is a bug in the license, but agreeing on that does not mean that there is no problem. not everyone agrees with your loony misinterpretation. at worst it's a minor bug - it could use some clarification (mostly to shut up lunatics with bizarro-world interpretations), but it's nowhere near a show-stopper bug. [ remainder of your tripe deleted ] i've had enough. i couldn't be bothered going through the rest of your post and pointing out the inevitable flaws and idiocies. there's no point, anyway - like all extremist nutcases you are fixed in your opinion and no amount of logic or even the real world smacking you in the face with harsh reality will ever change it. i really don't know why i even bothered responding this time. i've wasted more than enough of my time on others like you in the past with nothing to show for it but an increasing disillusionment and disgust with the debian organisation and the extremist vermin who infest it. it's why i do little or nothing for debian any more, and am unlikely to do so
Re: Amendment: GFDL is compatible with DFSG
On Mon, Jan 30, 2006 at 12:09:55AM +1100, Craig Sanders 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: (2) The Invariant Sections - Main Objection Against GFDL [...] This argument has been brought up a number of times already, but it does not hold. no, it holds perfectly well. the trouble is that nutcases aren't in the least bit swayed by reason or logic - they have their own bizarre and psychotic mis-interpretation of reality and nothing, NOTHING, is ever going to sway them from it. Ah, ad hominem attacks. Wonderful! Really speaks for your ability to get your point across. Of course the argument doesn't hold. Invariant sections cannot be modified, and DFSG3 requires modifiability. EOT. [...] It says that you *must* either include a Transparent copy along with each opaque copy (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. As written, it is not enough to point the recipient to an available copy that they can take if they want to; you must either include it, or maintain a website. bullshit! it says nothing of the kind. as usual, you extremist nutcases have no hesitation about lying if it will further your moronic agenda. I'm not lying. I have an opinion that is different from yours. it says that, along with an opaque copy, you must include EITHER a transparent copy or state the publicly accessible computer network location where the user can obtain a transparent copy. it says NOTHING AT ALL that could even remotely be interpreted as saying you must operate or maintain that site yourself. all it says is that you have to refer users to it. True. However, if you point users to a site that is not under your own control, you basically risk being sued if the person that _does_ control the site decides to take it down. In a literal interpretation of that text, you're right; however, for all practical and legal purposes, you're not. and even if it did - so what? it's hardly an onerous or unreasonable clause, nor does it in any way restrict freedom. I disagree, but as it's not my main problem against the FDL, I don't care either way. [...] i've had enough. i couldn't be bothered going through the rest of your post and pointing out the inevitable flaws and idiocies. there's no point, anyway - like all extremist nutcases you are fixed in your opinion Ditto. -- .../ -/ ---/ .--./ / .--/ .-/ .../ -/ ../ -./ --./ / -.--/ ---/ ..-/ .-./ / -/ ../ --/ ./ / .--/ ../ -/ / / -../ ./ -.-./ ---/ -../ ../ -./ --./ / --/ -.--/ / .../ ../ --./ -./ .-/ -/ ..-/ .-./ ./ .-.-.-/ / --/ ---/ .-./ .../ ./ / ../ .../ / ---/ ..-/ -/ -../ .-/ -/ ./ -../ / -/ ./ -.-./ / -./ ---/ .-../ ---/ --./ -.--/ / .-/ -./ -.--/ .--/ .-/ -.--/ .-.-.-/ / ...-.-/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Amendment: GFDL is compatible with DFSG
On Sun, Jan 29, 2006 at 05:13:26PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote: On Mon, Jan 30, 2006 at 12:09:55AM +1100, Craig Sanders 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: (2) The Invariant Sections - Main Objection Against GFDL [...] This argument has been brought up a number of times already, but it does not hold. no, it holds perfectly well. the trouble is that nutcases aren't in the least bit swayed by reason or logic - they have their own bizarre and psychotic mis-interpretation of reality and nothing, NOTHING, is ever going to sway them from it. Ah, ad hominem attacks. only indirectly. the real point, which you missed, was to be an accurate description of reality - something that, as an extremist nutcase, you are challenged by. Of course the argument doesn't hold. Invariant sections cannot be modified, and DFSG3 requires modifiability. EOT. bullshit. as has been pointed out hundreds of times before, there are several other situations where neither the DFSG nor the debian project require modifiability - license texts and copyright notices, for example. you and your ilk may choose to ignore this as a minor detail and pretend that it's irrelevent and no kind of precedent, but that's because you're extremist nutcases highly skilled at ignoring reality when it contradicts your lunatic viewpoint. it doesn't actually change the reality. wishing it weren't so don't make it so. It says that you *must* either include a Transparent copy along with each opaque copy (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. As written, it is not enough to point the recipient to an available copy that they can take if they want to; you must either include it, or maintain a website. bullshit! it says nothing of the kind. as usual, you extremist nutcases have no hesitation about lying if it will further your moronic agenda. I'm not lying. I have an opinion that is different from yours. no, you're lying. you are stating something which is not true, and that you know is not true. the GFDL does not say what you are claiming it does, it does not even imply what you are claiming, yet you claim it anyway because it's a useful shock tactic to demonize the GFDL and support your argument. it says that, along with an opaque copy, you must include EITHER a transparent copy or state the publicly accessible computer network location where the user can obtain a transparent copy. it says NOTHING AT ALL that could even remotely be interpreted as saying you must operate or maintain that site yourself. all it says is that you have to refer users to it. True. However, if you point users to a site that is not under your own control, you basically risk being sued if the person that _does_ control the site decides to take it down. In a literal interpretation of that text, you're right; however, for all practical and legal purposes, you're not. and if a meteorite falls on your head, you can no longer give away copies of GPL source code for binaries you have distributed. since this could happen at any time, you're constantly at risk of being in violation of the GPL. GIVE. IT. A. FUCKING. REST! really! who the hell are you trying to fool? yourself? nobody else is going to be taken in by such a lame risk. craig -- craig sanders [EMAIL PROTECTED] (part time cyborg) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Amendment: GFDL is compatible with DFSG
ma, 2006-01-30 kello 09:24 +1100, Craig Sanders kirjoitti: only indirectly. the real point, which you missed, was to be an accurate description of reality - something that, as an extremist nutcase, you are challenged by. [ further insults deleted ] Craig, could you please behave in a polite manner? Regardless of whether you're right or wrong about your claims about the GFDL, your manner is inappropriate on Debian mailing lists. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Amendment: GFDL is compatible with DFSG
On Mon, Jan 30, 2006 at 02:37:05AM +0200, Lars Wirzenius wrote: ma, 2006-01-30 kello 09:24 +1100, Craig Sanders kirjoitti: only indirectly. the real point, which you missed, was to be an accurate description of reality - something that, as an extremist nutcase, you are challenged by. [ further insults deleted ] Craig, could you please behave in a polite manner? Regardless of whether you're right or wrong about your claims about the GFDL, your manner is inappropriate on Debian mailing lists. i'll behave as i please. if you don't like my words, then don't read them - kill file me if you feel it's necessary. ruining an organisation like debian is a FAR greater crime than mere impoliteness - and when i see extremist nutcases ruining what used to be a great organisation, then i'll express my anger and sadness in whatever manner i see fit. debian used to be great. now it's infested by psycho loonies with an, at best, tenuous grasp on reality - all determined to prove that they're Holier Than Stallman by being as unreasonable and pedantic about trivial crap as they possibly can. fortunately, the debian operating system is still good, even if the org. is screwed - at least until the loonies really get their way and toss out all the documentation for whatever trumped-up frivolous excuse is currently fashionable amongst them. craig -- craig sanders [EMAIL PROTECTED] (part time cyborg) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
