Re: Question about GFDL licensed works
On Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 12:05:57AM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote: > Le dimanche 12 février 2006 à 09:22 -0600, Manoj Srivastava a écrit : > > Am I in violation of the License merely by unpacking make or > > by doing an "tla get" on my machine? If I am, why is this free -- I > > can't even unpack the sources " with no Invariant Sections, with no > > Front-Cover Texts, and with no Back-Cover Texts" on my SELinux > > running Linux machine without breaking the law. > > > > If people who sponsored the second amendment can explain to me > > why something that prevents me from using SELinux when all I am doing > > is unpack and copy make sources is deemed free, I would be, err, > > grateful. > > Don't be so stubborn. This could be easily worked around by making GFDL > works depend on a package containing a rootkit. This way, their > installation would always comply with the license. Or another popular argument these days, "not being allowed to put a password on your machine is just a practical problem, which doesn't make the license non-free". -- Glenn Maynard -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract
On Sun, Feb 12, 2006 at 10:07:23AM +1300, Nick Phillips wrote: > On the contrary, it makes perfect sense. If it makes part of the > constitution look silly or pointless to you, then there are at least > two other possible sources of that silliness. I think this circling argument is silly, not the constitution. > > If you take these "interpretive" GRs as not requiring 3:1, then you can > > bypass the 3:1 requirement entirely merely by phrasing your changes as > > an "interpretion", and you can phrase anything at all as an "interpretion". > > I actually don't think that's the case. But let's assume that it > is. The fact that you can get around the 3:1 requirement by wording > your GR appropriately merely shows the 3:1 requirement (or its > wording) to have been inadequately thought through -- it certainly > doesn't magically extend it (a particularly bad idea if it seems like > it might not have been adequately thought through in the first place). This "it's only an interpretation! not 3:1!" is merely word-game rules- lawyering to try to create a loophole in the constitution. Those loopholes can always be created, if everyone is allowed their own interpretation of the rules; that's not an indication of lack of forethought. Fortunately, as is typically the case, everyone is not allowed their own interpretation of the rules. -- Glenn Maynard -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract
On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 03:21:57PM +1300, Nick Phillips wrote: > The vote is not a means of rescinding the DFSG or SC, nor even of > contradicting them. It is the *only* means we have of determining > whether something is in compliance with them. If a majority say that > that is the case, then for our purposes, it is so. This is silly. It seems like the constitution effectively says "if the resolution passes it required a simple majority; if it failed, it needed 3:1". I agree with Thomas on the general case. Going up to a nearby thread: > If I propose a resolution that says "This resolution is not a > recission or modification of a Foundation Document. The text of the > DFSG shall remain intact just as is. The main Debian archive may now > include any software which it is legally permitted to distribute, > whether it passes the tests of the DFSG or not," are you seriously > saying that such a resolution requires only a majority vote? If you take these "interpretive" GRs as not requiring 3:1, then you can bypass the 3:1 requirement entirely merely by phrasing your changes as an "interpretion", and you can phrase anything at all as an "interpretion". -- Glenn Maynard -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract
On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 06:41:04PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: > Still, I have no confidence at this point. I am quite sure that, even > if Anthony's original resolution passes overwhelmingly, we will see > another GR with the effect "keep GFDL'd documentation in main" before > long. Before or after the next renaming of "creationism", I wonder? -- Glenn Maynard -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Amendment: GFDL is compatible with DFSG
On Tue, Jan 24, 2006 at 12:17:24PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > With respect to that freedom GPL is also non-free.
>
> It is not. See below.
Anyone arguing for invariant sections by pointing to license texts has
missed all of the prior discussions on this topic, going back years.
Given the quantity of discussions around the GFDL topics, it's not too
surprising that people would miss parts, but as the topic has been done
to death, I suggest merely referring people to those conversations.
Mostly found googling for 'site:lists.debian.org debian-legal "license
texts" unmodifiable' and variants:
2001: http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2001/11/msg9.html at [1]
2002: http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/12/msg00067.html
2003; http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/10/msg00033.html
2004: http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2004/05/msg00370.html
2005: http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2005/04/msg00625.html ("removal or
modification")
This is just more wedging, trying to abuse the fact that Debian allows
invariant license texts to squeeze in other invariant stuff.
I would suggest anyone engaging in such wedging carefully reevaluate
whether what they're doing is really in the best interests of Debian;
or whether they're just trying to contrive a way to pound Debian into
"agreement" with the FSF.
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Amendment to the Constitution: Add a new foundation document
On Mon, May 03, 2004 at 12:33:25AM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote: > This is a major factor contributing to my belief that such a transition > *guide* should not be given the status of a foundation document. I Foundation documents lay foundations, and I don't see how a "transition" document lays a foundation--transition plans are support, not foundation. I think putting a transition guide on a level with the Social Contract is strange. (However, I havn't been following this GR very closely.) -- Glenn Maynard -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Amendment to the Constitution: Add a new foundation document
On Mon, May 03, 2004 at 12:33:25AM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote: > This is a major factor contributing to my belief that such a transition > *guide* should not be given the status of a foundation document. I Foundation documents lay foundations, and I don't see how a "transition" document lays a foundation--transition plans are support, not foundation. I think putting a transition guide on a level with the Social Contract is strange. (However, I havn't been following this GR very closely.) -- Glenn Maynard
Re: Social Contract GR's Affect on sarge
Removed Theodore Ts'o from the CC list, since he didn't ask to be CC'd. On Mon, Apr 26, 2004 at 12:54:14PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote: > Well, now, I'm not entirely convinced of this. Could a similar argument > not be used on JPEG's or PNG's? Do we have *some* reasonable way to A similar argument has been made. This is why I'm tending to think it's unreasonable to expect source for everything. I do think every *other* requirement (except for DFSG#2) applies to other data. I think that firmware is no different than any other program, and should require source, but I'm not so sure about other types of software (such as PNGs and fonts). Some have argued that DFSG#2 doesn't apply to PNGs, etc. because it uses the word "program". I don't think the language is quite that clear. If there's disagreement on this, changing DFSG#2 from "The program ..." to "Programs ..." might help. I would tend to think that there's no need to define that further--"program" seems to obviously include /bin/ls and firmware blobs, and exclude documentation, fonts[1] and images--but the RM is apparently claiming that the old SC didn't apply to firmware, as if firmware isn't software (a very strange claim, IMO). Of course, this wouldn't change the need to remove non-free firmware or GFDL'd documentation. [1] Oops. Hinted fonts have programs in them. I'm not even sure where to start on that. -- Glenn Maynard
Re: Social Contract GR's Affect on sarge
Removed Theodore Ts'o from the CC list, since he didn't ask to be CC'd. On Mon, Apr 26, 2004 at 12:54:14PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote: > Well, now, I'm not entirely convinced of this. Could a similar argument > not be used on JPEG's or PNG's? Do we have *some* reasonable way to A similar argument has been made. This is why I'm tending to think it's unreasonable to expect source for everything. I do think every *other* requirement (except for DFSG#2) applies to other data. I think that firmware is no different than any other program, and should require source, but I'm not so sure about other types of software (such as PNGs and fonts). Some have argued that DFSG#2 doesn't apply to PNGs, etc. because it uses the word "program". I don't think the language is quite that clear. If there's disagreement on this, changing DFSG#2 from "The program ..." to "Programs ..." might help. I would tend to think that there's no need to define that further--"program" seems to obviously include /bin/ls and firmware blobs, and exclude documentation, fonts[1] and images--but the RM is apparently claiming that the old SC didn't apply to firmware, as if firmware isn't software (a very strange claim, IMO). Of course, this wouldn't change the need to remove non-free firmware or GFDL'd documentation. [1] Oops. Hinted fonts have programs in them. I'm not even sure where to start on that. -- Glenn Maynard -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
