Re: Amendment: GFDL is compatible with DFSG

[Steve Langasek]

On Tue, Jan 31, 2006 at 01:31:30PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 30, 2006 at 06:13:14PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > no, the truth is, you're blinkered and inflexible and determined to
> > twist [...]

> how long did it take to train you?  can you do other tricks?

Yes, I can also organize bug-squashing parties, work with the ftp and QA
teams to ensure obsolete packages are removed from the archive, do NMUs in
order to fix bugs in others packages, and propose release schedules.  And
what is it that you do for Debian again?  Defender of the faith and arbiter
of orthodoxy, was it, whose reasoning is so self-evident that it needs no
defense but always justifies being an asshole to your fellow developers?

Oh, oops, I've gone off script.  I mean...  "chicken butt."

-- 
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: Minimum standard of decency, was: Amendment: GFDL is compatible with DFSG

[MJ Ray]

Adeodato Simó
> Are you deliberately lying here, to make your point prettier, or are
> you ciberately stating that Andrew lied himself in [3]?

Neither.

Thanks,
-- 
MJR/slef
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct


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

Re: Minimum standard of decency, was: Amendment: GFDL is compatible with DFSG

[Roger Leigh]

MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> Roger Leigh
>> I think that this behaviour, as well as that on other lists in the
>> recent past, is making it increasingly necessary that we introduce
>> some way of enforcing a minimum standard of decency on our lists. [...]
>
> You pillory[1] a man over his -private beliefs about death[2]
> to the point where he recoils from the project[3],

Not at all.  His beliefs are nothing to do with it, and never have
been.  I'm not sure where you got that from.

> don't answer off-list mail about it and then have the nerve to
> lecture about "a minimum standard of decency"? Breathtaking.

You sent me a mail during a rather long flamewar.  While I was
grateful to receive it, I haven't yet replied to it, nor to any other
public or private mail on that subject, for the past two weeks.  I
thought it would be better to let the flamewar die down.  Everything
that people wanted to say has already been said many times over, so I
didn't think there anything more constructive to be gained from
perpetuating it.

> Nevertheless, Craig Sanders's colourful rants break the lists code
> of conduct far more clearly than posting satire to -devel-announce.
> Where are the winged angels of vengence? But then, the d-d-a ban
> didn't look like it was about enforcing the list codes anyway.

It was about enforcing the list codes.  I'll ask the listmasters to
look at this as well.


-- 
Roger Leigh
Printing on GNU/Linux?  http://gutenprint.sourceforge.net/
Debian GNU/Linuxhttp://www.debian.org/
GPG Public Key: 0x25BFB848.  Please sign and encrypt your mail.


pgpsCnhvFsutw.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Amendment: GFDL is compatible with DFSG

[Craig Sanders]

On Mon, Jan 30, 2006 at 06:13:14PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> no, the truth is, you're blinkered and inflexible and determined to
> twist [...]

oh look, it's yet another wind up doll - how cute. 

how long did it take to train you?  can you do other tricks?




there does seem to be a lot of these windup dolls in here...maybe you're
all under the misapprehension that it's in some way "clever" to quote
someone's words back at them. or maybe you're all irony-challenged
americans and think that that constitutes irony.

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

[Steve Langasek]

On Tue, Jan 31, 2006 at 10:10:11AM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 30, 2006 at 04:12:09PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 31, 2006 at 01:34:45AM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jan 30, 2006 at 01:08:36PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > > > I'm willing to debate whatever you want to debate about the GFDL, but
> > > > not with insults and shouting.

> > > no, the truth is, you're not. you're blinkered and inflexible and
> > > determined to twist every little thing until anyone reasonable just
> > > gives up.

> > That's simply not true.

> > You may have discussed this with other people in the past, but not with
> > me. You have sent me all of two mails that were full of insult, none of
> > which contained anything which could pursuade me into buying your
> > argument.

> you'll have to excuse me if i see all you faceless drones who parrot the
> exact same mindless lies as interchangeable Zealot Propaganda Units.

> with one of you, as with all, there's no point in engaging in debate or
> any kind of civilised discourse.

no, the truth is, you're blinkered and inflexible and determined to twist
every little thing until anyone reasonable just gives up. it's really not
worth the bother of "debating" with extremist nutcases, you just go around
and around in circles over the same ground. and you can't win. no matter
what points you make, you jerks will just ignore them and THEN CONTINUE WITH
THE SAME OLD LIES, NO MATTER HOW OFTEN OR HOW RECENTLY THEY HAVE BEEN
DISCREDITED. and when that isn't working, or perhaps just for variety, you
lot throw in all sorts of stupid non-sequitirs and tangents to distract and
side-track any argument so that it gets bogged down in irrelevancies. for
months. or years. and again and again and again.[1]

-- 
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/

[1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2006/01/msg00316.html for those
playing along at home and not catching the irony


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Amendment: GFDL is compatible with DFSG

[Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt]

Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> with one of you, as with all, there's no point in engaging in debate or
> any kind of civilised discourse.

So ... Why don't you just stop the flaming, if there's no point anyway?
I have the feeling that this would somehow improve the climate of the
discussion here on -vote.

Marc
-- 
 weasel, I don't know, *some* of us had several years of
  complicated sex experience before we got tired of it 
 liw: that's when you became a DD? :)
 weasel, nah, that's when I had sex removed from debian


pgpYnxGROiqEF.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Minimum standard of decency, was: Amendment: GFDL is compatible with DFSG

[Adeodato Simó]

* MJ Ray [Tue, 31 Jan 2006 00:25:48 +]:

> to the point where he recoils from the project[3], don't answer

  Are you deliberately lying here, to make your point prettier, or are
  you ciberately stating that Andrew lied himself in [3]?

> 3. http://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2006/01/msg00073.html

  So long,

-- 
Adeodato Simó dato at net.com.org.es
Debian Developer  adeodato at debian.org
 
 Listening to: Jacques Brel - La Fanette


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

Re: Minimum standard of decency, was: Amendment: GFDL is compatible with DFSG

[Thomas Bushnell BSG]

MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> Nevertheless, Craig Sanders's colourful rants break the lists code
> of conduct far more clearly than posting satire to -devel-announce.
> Where are the winged angels of vengence? But then, the d-d-a ban
> didn't look like it was about enforcing the list codes anyway.

I have been upset with Craig for years, but the project decided that
his "colorful rants" are acceptible conduct.


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

Minimum standard of decency, was: Amendment: GFDL is compatible with DFSG

[MJ Ray]

Roger Leigh
> I think that this behaviour, as well as that on other lists in the
> recent past, is making it increasingly necessary that we introduce
> some way of enforcing a minimum standard of decency on our lists. [...]

You pillory[1] a man over his -private beliefs about death[2]
to the point where he recoils from the project[3], don't answer
off-list mail about it and then have the nerve to lecture about
"a minimum standard of decency"? Breathtaking.

1. http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2006/01/msg00954.html
2. http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2006/01/msg00968.html
3. http://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2006/01/msg00073.html

Nevertheless, Craig Sanders's colourful rants break the lists code
of conduct far more clearly than posting satire to -devel-announce.
Where are the winged angels of vengence? But then, the d-d-a ban
didn't look like it was about enforcing the list codes anyway.

-- 
MJR/slef
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct


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

Re: Amendment: GFDL is compatible with DFSG

[Thomas Bushnell BSG]

Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> with one of you, as with all, there's no point in engaging in debate or
> any kind of civilised discourse.

I wish Craig would stop posting rather than spending time telling us
how useless his posts are.

Thomas


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

Re: Amendment: GFDL is compatible with DFSG

[Craig Sanders]

On Mon, Jan 30, 2006 at 04:12:09PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 31, 2006 at 01:34:45AM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 30, 2006 at 01:08:36PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > > I'm willing to debate whatever you want to debate about the GFDL, but
> > > not with insults and shouting.
> > 
> > no, the truth is, you're not. you're blinkered and inflexible and
> > determined to twist every little thing until anyone reasonable just
> > gives up.
> 
> That's simply not true.
> 
> You may have discussed this with other people in the past, but not with
> me. You have sent me all of two mails that were full of insult, none of
> which contained anything which could pursuade me into buying your
> argument.

you'll have to excuse me if i see all you faceless drones who parrot the
exact same mindless lies as interchangeable Zealot Propaganda Units.

with one of you, as with all, there's no point in engaging in debate or
any kind of civilised discourse.


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

[Thomas Bushnell BSG]

Roger Leigh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> I think that this behaviour, as well as that on other lists in the
> recent past, is making it increasingly necessary that we introduce
> some way of enforcing a minimum standard of decency on our lists.  We
> can't continue like this for long.  This sort of thing would result in
> immediate action on most (if not all) of the upstream lists I
> participate upon.

It is also a violation of the list policy.  But we see what happens
when the listmasters decide to enforce the list policy.  I wonder if
they have the stomach to try again.

Thomas


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

Re: Amendment: GFDL is compatible with DFSG

[Roger Leigh]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> Lars Wirzenius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> 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.
>
> Craig has already made it abundantly clear that he thinks the standards of
> decent behavior do not apply to him.
>
> The Project has made it abundantly clear that this is Just Fine.
>
> I do not rejoice in these facts; both of them make me quite sad, but
> such they are.

I think that this behaviour, as well as that on other lists in the
recent past, is making it increasingly necessary that we introduce
some way of enforcing a minimum standard of decency on our lists.  We
can't continue like this for long.  This sort of thing would result in
immediate action on most (if not all) of the upstream lists I
participate upon.

You would have liked the vitriolic diatribe Craig mailed to me
privately off-list, in response to my request for politeness, even
less...


Regards,
Roger

- -- 
Roger Leigh
Printing on GNU/Linux?  http://gutenprint.sourceforge.net/
Debian GNU/Linuxhttp://www.debian.org/
GPG Public Key: 0x25BFB848.  Please sign and encrypt your mail.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.5.8+ 

iD8DBQFD3oyTVcFcaSW/uEgRAiAuAKDD+Qy6GR/7WVbERAfeGWkMTKkjCQCfe9Bo
LVkLA86rEKjocxx9Z7BDV9U=
=+wrJ
-END PGP SIGNATURE-


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

Re: Amendment: GFDL is compatible with DFSG

[Thomas Bushnell BSG]

Lars Wirzenius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> 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.

Craig has already made it abundantly clear that he thinks the standards of
decent behavior do not apply to him.

The Project has made it abundantly clear that this is Just Fine.

I do not rejoice in these facts; both of them make me quite sad, but
such they are.

Thomas


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

Re: Amendment: GFDL is compatible with DFSG

[Anton Zinoviev]

On Mon, Jan 30, 2006 at 03:09:53PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
>
>  "you CAN modify an invariant section - but you can only do so
>   by adding a new section that subverts or refutes or simply adds
>   to the invariant section." (Craig Sanders, January 2005)
> vs
>  "If it is modified, it does not do its job." (RMS, May 2003)
> 
> and so on and so forth. Even RMS's comments disagree with
> some pro-FDL Craig Sanders ones.

There is absolutely no contradictions between these two statements.
It is not useful to change a text in invariant section (Stallman) but
nevertheless it is possible to improve it by adding a new secondary
section (Craig Sanders).

BTW, I couldn't find the source of the quotation of Craig Sanders.

Anton Zinoviev


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

Re: Amendment: GFDL is compatible with DFSG

[Craig Sanders]

On Mon, Jan 30, 2006 at 03:09:53PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> > the same old bullshit and lies over and over and over again.
> 
> Nice of you to admit you're just reheating year-old crap.
> Here, I'll save the trouble of one post/debunk cycle:
>  "you CAN modify an invariant section - but you can only do so
>   by adding a new section that subverts or refutes or simply adds
>   to the invariant section." (Craig Sanders, January 2005)
> vs
>  "If it is modified, it does not do its job." (RMS, May 2003)
> 
> and so on and so forth. Even RMS's comments disagree with
> some pro-FDL Craig Sanders ones. Why should people believe
> Craig Sanders saying "this is free software" when even
> RMS doesn't do that AFAICT?

ah, of course. this time you're using the "lie by juxtaposing two
unrelated things out of context and pretend as if they are directly
relayed to each other" method. nice choice, one of your better methods
- reasonably subtle and very effective if the reader isn't paying close
attention.  score: 6.5 out of 10.


1. what i said was an analogy to the DFSG clause that allows a license
to require that modification be done only by patch. adding a new
invariant section is to documentation what a patch is to software.

2. wihout any context, i don't know what the hell RMS was commenting on,
but it certainly wasn't anything i said. it was nearly two years prior
to my words.


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

[Wouter Verhelst]

On Tue, Jan 31, 2006 at 01:34:45AM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 30, 2006 at 01:08:36PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 30, 2006 at 09:24:15AM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> > > GIVE. IT. A. FUCKING. REST!
> > 
> > Craig,
> > 
> > I'm willing to debate whatever you want to debate about the GFDL, but
> > not with insults and shouting.
> 
> no, the truth is, you're not. you're blinkered and inflexible and
> determined to twist every little thing until anyone reasonable just
> gives up.

That's simply not true.

You may have discussed this with other people in the past, but not with
me. You have sent me all of two mails that were full of insult, none of
which contained anything which could pursuade me into buying your
argument.

The statement that I'm inflexible on this matter is an outright lie (to
use your words) if there ever was one. Even in this very thread I've
revised my opinion on the matter due to arguments which were presented
to me in a _polite_ manner by Anton Zinoviev (before this thread, I was
of the opinion that the transparent copies thing was a serious problem
wrt the DFSG; right now, I'm not so sure anymore).

If you're willing to try to pursuade me, I'm open to a polite discussion
and will promise that I'll perform it in the same manner that I always
do, i.e., with an open mind. But I don't have time to waste on personal
abuse. Other than that,

[...lots of personal abuse snipped...]
> debian was a great organisation before your ilk came along and ruined
> it.

Ditto. Insulting people because they disagree with you is a very good
way to make sure they won't like talking to you. Making sure people
don't like talking to you is a very good way to deteriorate the way
people generally feel in an organisation.

And that's my final word on your behaviour. Again, if you're willing to
politely discuss it, so am I; but I resent being called inflexible and I
refuse to listen to anyone who's main modus operandi seems to be to
throw any insult they can come up with in my general direction.

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


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

Re: Amendment: GFDL is compatible with DFSG

[MJ Ray]

Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Mon, Jan 30, 2006 at 10:24:17AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> > As has been pointed out hundreds more times, those limitations are
> > imposed by copyright law more than by licences. Even the licences
> > which can be modified (such as the GPL), can't be modified if you
> > wish downstream recipients to exercise the permissions.
> 
> you lot just never give it a rest, do you?

Debunking your lies? Nope. Doesn't it just gut you?

> the same old bullshit and lies over and over and over again.

Nice of you to admit you're just reheating year-old crap.
Here, I'll save the trouble of one post/debunk cycle:
 "you CAN modify an invariant section - but you can only do so
  by adding a new section that subverts or refutes or simply adds
  to the invariant section." (Craig Sanders, January 2005)
vs
 "If it is modified, it does not do its job." (RMS, May 2003)

and so on and so forth. Even RMS's comments disagree with
some pro-FDL Craig Sanders ones. Why should people believe
Craig Sanders saying "this is free software" when even
RMS doesn't do that AFAICT?

-- 
MJ Ray - personal email, see http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html
Work: http://www.ttllp.co.uk/  irc.oftc.net/slef  Jabber/SIP ask


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

Re: Amendment: GFDL is compatible with DFSG

[Craig Sanders]

On Mon, Jan 30, 2006 at 10:24:17AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> Craig Sanders wrote:
> > 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.
> 
> As has been pointed out hundreds more times, those limitations are
> imposed by copyright law more than by licences. Even the licences
> which can be modified (such as the GPL), can't be modified if you
> wish downstream recipients to exercise the permissions.

you lot just never give it a rest, do you?

the same old bullshit and lies over and over and over again.





> You and your ilk may choose to ignore this as a minor detail and pretend
> that it's irrelevent, but that's because you're extremist nutcases
> highly skilled at ignoring reality when it contradicts your lunatic view.

oh, how cute. just like a talking doll. pull the string and it repeats
your words back at you. and without too much dribbling! you must be very
proud of your intellectual capacity, there were several words with more
than two syllables in that lot.

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

[Craig Sanders]

On Mon, Jan 30, 2006 at 01:08:36PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 30, 2006 at 09:24:15AM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> > GIVE. IT. A. FUCKING. REST!
> 
> Craig,
> 
> I'm willing to debate whatever you want to debate about the GFDL, but
> not with insults and shouting.

no, the truth is, you're not. you're blinkered and inflexible and
determined to twist every little thing until anyone reasonable just
gives up. it's really not worth the bother of "debating" with extremist
nutcases, you just go around and around in circles over the same ground.
and you can't win. no matter what points you make, you jerks will
just ignore them and THEN CONTINUE WITH THE SAME OLD LIES, NO MATTER
HOW OFTEN OR HOW RECENTLY THEY HAVE BEEN DISCREDITED. and when that
isn't working, or perhaps just for variety, you lot throw in all sorts
of stupid non-sequitirs and tangents to distract and side-track any
argument so that it gets bogged down in irrelevancies. for months. or
years. and again and again and again. 

i've been suckered into playing that game before. i have no interest
in doing so again. the only sane response is to just try to ignore you
creeps as much and for as long as possibleand mostly i succeed.

i don't even bother reading the debian lists more than once every two
or three months these days - and whenever i do, the same damn arguments
are raging. how long have you zealots dragged this GFDL one out for?
one year? two years? or is it three? and it's EXACTLY the same fucking
argument. after all this time. nothing ever changes.

and before that it was trying to get rid of the non-free section of the
archive, making such a huge fuss about the dreadful non-free programs in
there. nobody even bothered evaluating all the software to figure out
what kind of non-free software it was - until I didi went through
every single package in non-free and made notes on their licenses, and
IIRC there were less than a dozen (out of about 200 or so) that didn't
have source or didn't allow modification or redistribution. almost all
of the licensing problems were trivial or only prohibited commercial
exploitation. not exactly free, but nothing to get rabidly upset about,
either (in fact, IIRC some of the authors were subsequently contacted
and agreed to change the license terms so that they were truly free
- that's the RIGHT way to fix problems). even being presented with
facts like that didn't stop the argument, BECAUSE YOU ARSEWIPES AREN'T
INTERESTED IN FACTS OR REALITY, you're only interested in your bullshit
uber-zealot point of view. anything not matching your loony extemist
prejudices is ignored - it simply does not exist for you lot.

that's why arguing with people like you is a complete waste of time.

and as for the insults - frankly, people like you who have ruined the
debian organisation deserve a lot worse than i've ever given you.



BTW, here's a real world fact for you: repeating something false, no
matter how loudly or how often you do it, DOES NOT MAKE IT TRUE. even
writing a FAQ document doesn't turn a falsehood into truth.

really. i know you'll find that hard to believe, but that's the way
the *REAL WORLD* works. i'm not sure what world you live in, but you
obviously believe it works very differently to the real world. it must
be very nice for you.


> Respectfully,

i have no respect for nutcases and vandals.

debian was a great organisation before your ilk came along and ruined
it.

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

[Wouter Verhelst]

On Mon, Jan 30, 2006 at 09:24:15AM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> GIVE. IT. A. FUCKING. REST!

Craig,

I'm willing to debate whatever you want to debate about the GFDL, but
not with insults and shouting.

Respectfully,

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


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

Re: Amendment: GFDL is compatible with DFSG

[Roger Leigh]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> 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.

Craig,

None of your commentary above is constructive.  If you have a point to
make, please do so without the personal abuse.  This sort of vitriol
only serves to detract from your claims, be they valid or not.


Regards,
Roger

- -- 
Roger Leigh
Printing on GNU/Linux?  http://gutenprint.sourceforge.net/
Debian GNU/Linuxhttp://www.debian.org/
GPG Public Key: 0x25BFB848.  Please sign and encrypt your mail.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.5.8+ 

iD8DBQFD3fghVcFcaSW/uEgRAhBLAJ9PaMCS/HO5zz8aGAcxoGKeaDeDSACgp329
HkpgXm6jwkY+ecOIMzQSEpY=
=9rhL
-END PGP SIGNATURE-


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

Re: Amendment: GFDL is compatible with DFSG

[MJ Ray]

Craig Sanders wrote:
> 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.

As has been pointed out hundreds more times, those limitations are
imposed by copyright law more than by licences. Even the licences
which can be modified (such as the GPL), can't be modified if you
wish downstream recipients to exercise the permissions.

You and your ilk may choose to ignore this as a minor detail and pretend
that it's irrelevent, but that's because you're extremist nutcases
highly skilled at ignoring reality when it contradicts your lunatic view.

-- 
MJR/slef
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct


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

Re: Amendment: GFDL is compatible with DFSG

[Lars Wirzenius]

ma, 2006-01-30 kello 13:39 +1100, Craig Sanders kirjoitti:
> 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.

Nobody has the right to be personally insulting on Debian lists. It
would certainly be possible to express concern about the current issue
without vitriol. Abusing other people hurts the discussion by poisoning
the atmosphere and making it more difficult to be constructive and to
reach a mutual understanding. Flaming and attacking people involved in
the discussion is not going to help settle the issue.



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

Re: Amendment: GFDL is compatible with DFSG

[Craig Sanders]

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]

Re: Amendment: GFDL is compatible with DFSG

[Lars Wirzenius]

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

[Craig Sanders]

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

[Wouter Verhelst]

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

[Craig Sanders]

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. i

Re: Amendment: GFDL is compatible with DFSG

[Craig Sanders]

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

[Moritz Muehlenhoff]

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 quoted below. It's my understanding that it
fulfills option (A) as described in:
http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.linux.debian.devel.vote/8148:
 
Cheers,
Moritz

> ---
>
> 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 app

Re: Amendment: GFDL is compatible with DFSG

[Fabian Fagerholm]

On Wed, 2006-01-25 at 16:55 -0600, Graham Wilson wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 25, 2006 at 10:10:22AM +0200, Fabian Fagerholm wrote:
> > Those in favour of two separate GR's:
> > 
> >   * Read my GR proposal [0] and second it (your choice of course).
> >   * Read Nathanael's amendment proposal [1] to my proposal. A DD
> > needs to send it as a reply to my proposal so that it becomes an
> > officially proposed amendment (*). I will second it, and suggest
> > others do too (again, your choice or course).
> >   * Send any other amendment proposals as replies to my proposal. I
> > will consider seconding them as well.
> >   * After the first GR has been decided, we can consider what to say
> > in the position statement (or choose to say nothing).
> > 
> > (*) Can I do that without cancelling my original proposal? I'm not sure.
> 
> I don't believe there is any issue with that. Or, at least, I don't see
> why one person can't make an amendment to there own proposal and want it
> as a seperate choice one the ballot.

That would seem sensible, and I think the constitution allows for this.

In any case, since Nathanael has withdrawn his amendment proposal with
additional concerns, I won't propose it.

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


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

Re: Amendment: GFDL is compatible with DFSG

[Graham Wilson]

On Wed, Jan 25, 2006 at 10:10:22AM +0200, Fabian Fagerholm wrote:
> Those in favour of two separate GR's:
> 
>   * Read my GR proposal [0] and second it (your choice of course).
>   * Read Nathanael's amendment proposal [1] to my proposal. A DD
> needs to send it as a reply to my proposal so that it becomes an
> officially proposed amendment (*). I will second it, and suggest
> others do too (again, your choice or course).
>   * Send any other amendment proposals as replies to my proposal. I
> will consider seconding them as well.
>   * After the first GR has been decided, we can consider what to say
> in the position statement (or choose to say nothing).
> 
> (*) Can I do that without cancelling my original proposal? I'm not sure.

I don't believe there is any issue with that. Or, at least, I don't see
why one person can't make an amendment to there own proposal and want it
as a seperate choice one the ballot.

-- 
gram


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

Re: Amendment: GFDL is compatible with DFSG

[Jacobo Tarrio]

El martes, 24 de enero de 2006 a las 14:32:39 +0200, Anton Zinoviev escribía:

> > > >You may not use technical measures to obstruct or control the
> > > >reading or further copying of the copies you make or distribute
> > The permissions are clearly a "technical measure".
> >  They clearly obstruct and control the reading or further copying of
> > that copy.
> No, they can not.  They can not control something that doesn't exist.

 They obstruct the reading.

-- 
   Jacobo Tarrío | http://jacobo.tarrio.org/


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

Re: Amendment: GFDL is compatible with DFSG

[Fabian Fagerholm]

On Tue, 2006-01-24 at 16:05 -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 24, 2006 at 10:09:53PM +0200, Anton Zinoviev wrote:
> > The following is my reasoning (and similar for "control").
> > "Progress or accomplishment" means that the process that is being
> > hindered or prevented has already started.  Hence you can not
> > "obstruct the reading" if the process of reading has not started yet.
> > When the permission bit for reading is not set then the reading can
> > not start.
> 
> You must be an aspiring lawyer, because this attempt to twist common English
> words is stupid.  That, or you need to look up the meaning of "prevent" as
> well; sorry, I'm having a hard time guessing whether there's a language
> barrier here, or you're being deliberately perverse.  Your argument is
> equivalent to saying that since the police failed to stop you, there was no
> arrest, and therefore you were not resisting arrest.

The problem is that the GNU FDL doesn't do what its authors wanted it to
do when it comes to DRM. Anton wants to explain what the GNU FDL is
supposed to do, while Steve and Frank point out that it doesn't do it
well in most places, and doesn't do it at all in other places.

Before we cross the line where we no longer debate the issue and where
we reduce all arguments to personal insults, could we please stop?

Remember that with email, it's easy to make mistakes that are less
common elsewhere. Interpreting too literally. Anxiety due to the fact
that what you said will be recorded for a long time in the archives --
"have to get it right the first time". Perhaps worst of all, to forget
that the small compensations of body language when you have to tell
someone you disagree are missing from the email. You have to spell them
out. I suggest a break from this discussion. Go and do something fun
today, and return another time to read the message [0] I sent before
this one with suggestions on how to move forward from here.

[0] http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2006/01/msg00280.html

-- 
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 09:45 -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> I think I was partially responding to aj's question about why
>  we need it to be two separate GR's. At this point, we can have either
>  2 GR's -- one for deciding on the status of GFDL licensed works, with
>  or without invariant sections, and a second one for position
>  statements --- or conflate them.

Those in favour of two separate GR's:

  * Read my GR proposal [0] and second it (your choice of course).
  * Read Nathanael's amendment proposal [1] to my proposal. A DD
needs to send it as a reply to my proposal so that it becomes an
officially proposed amendment (*). I will second it, and suggest
others do too (again, your choice or course).
  * Send any other amendment proposals as replies to my proposal. I
will consider seconding them as well.
  * After the first GR has been decided, we can consider what to say
in the position statement (or choose to say nothing).

(*) Can I do that without cancelling my original proposal? I'm not sure.


Those in favour of a single GR regarding both the freeness of GNU FDL
and a public statement about it:

  * Read Manoj's list of possible combinations [3].
  * Rework my proposal [0] into alternative B and propose it as an
amendment. I will second it. I will consider doing this myself
later if there is not enough support for two separate GRs.
  * Propose amendments for alternatives A, C and F in Manoj's list.
I will consider seconding them.

[0] http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2006/01/msg00209.html
[1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2006/01/msg00254.html
[3] http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2006/01/msg00173.html


Finally, a reminder:

Proposing a GR or an amendment, or seconding an amendment, is not the
same as stating your opinion. Your opinion will be asked for when it's
time to vote. At this time, the question is about having the right
options on the ballot, even options that very few or nobody on this list
speak for.

Why? Because even if nobody likes it now, there might be a time in the
future, perhaps when we have all retired from Debian, that someone asks
why that option wasn't considered. Having all these options on the
ballot will show that we explicitly chose option X over all the other
options. If the Debian of the future wants to open up that issue again,
then let it be because they really want to revisit the core issue -- not
because of a technicality such as a missing option.

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


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

Re: Amendment: GFDL is compatible with DFSG

[Peter Samuelson]

[Anton Zinoviev]
> >  They clearly obstruct and control the reading or further copying of
> > that copy.
> 
> No, they can not.  They can not control something that doesn't exist.

I have the root password.  If I run 'su', I can read your document.  If
I don't, I can't.  You are now controlling how I can read your
document: I have to use 'su', and then either read it as root, copy it
as root, or chmod it as root.


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Amendment: GFDL is compatible with DFSG

[Anthony Towns]

On Tue, Jan 24, 2006 at 10:10:19PM +0100, Adeodato Sim?? wrote:
> * Peter Samuelson [Mon, 23 Jan 2006 17:39:07 -0600]:
> > - Neither Debian, nor the mirror network, nor the users, can use
> >   rsync-over-ssh to update their CD images or individual packages.
>   Can't the Debian Project (by means of its Developers doing so) choose
>   to interpret the license in the "clearly the 'make or' is not intended
>   literal" sense? I mean, this is sooo "please waive me".

Huh? Whether it's intended literally or not is the copyright holder's choice, 
not
Debian's.

Cheers,
aj




signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Amendment: GFDL is compatible with DFSG

[Anthony Towns]

On Tue, Jan 24, 2006 at 12:50:57AM -0600, Graham Wilson wrote:
> 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.

That's not the case -- the original proposal specifically talks about
the GFDL being unsuitable for main because it violates the DFSG; that it
may be unsuitable for other reasons is completely on-topic. The latter
two justifications don't go directly to the DFSG, even.

Cheers,
aj



signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Amendment: GFDL is compatible with DFSG

[Anthony Towns]

On Tue, Jan 24, 2006 at 11:22:49AM +0200, Anton Zinoviev wrote:
> > > It is a fact confirmed by Richard Stallman, author of GFDL,
> > Cite, please.
> I sent Richard Stallman a draft of my proposal where this paragraph
> contained the words "it is our belief that".  The responce by Stallman
> was "You can state that as more than just your belief.  It's a fact."

Second hand testimony isn't really enough.

Cheers,
aj



signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Amendment: GFDL is compatible with DFSG

[Steve Langasek]

On Tue, Jan 24, 2006 at 10:09:53PM +0200, Anton Zinoviev wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 24, 2006 at 04:27:25PM +0200, Kalle Kivimaa wrote:

> > So you agree that using permission bits is obstructing the reading, as
> > defined in the GFDL?

> > >From WordNet (r) 2.0 [wn]:
> >   obstruct
> >v 1: hinder or prevent the progress or accomplishment of; "His
> > brother blocked him at every turn" [syn: {blockade}, {block},
> >  {hinder}, {stymie}, {stymy}, {embarrass}]

> The following is my reasoning (and similar for "control").

> "Progress or accomplishment" means that the process that is being
> hindered or prevented has already started.  Hence you can not
> "obstruct the reading" if the process of reading has not started yet.
> When the permission bit for reading is not set then the reading can
> not start.

You must be an aspiring lawyer, because this attempt to twist common English
words is stupid.  That, or you need to look up the meaning of "prevent" as
well; sorry, I'm having a hard time guessing whether there's a language
barrier here, or you're being deliberately perverse.  Your argument is
equivalent to saying that since the police failed to stop you, there was no
arrest, and therefore you were not resisting arrest.

There's also a nice charge called "obstruction of justice", btw, for which
shouting "TANJ" at the judge is not a defense...

-- 
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: Amendment: GFDL is compatible with DFSG

[Glenn Maynard]

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: GFDL is compatible with DFSG

[Adeodato Simó]

* Peter Samuelson [Mon, 23 Jan 2006 17:39:07 -0600]:

> - 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.

  Isn't this addressed by [1] and its references?

[1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2006/01/msg00238.html

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

  Can't the Debian Project (by means of its Developers doing so) choose
  to interpret the license in the "clearly the 'make or' is not intended
  literal" sense? I mean, this is sooo "please waive me".

  Cheers,

-- 
Adeodato Simó dato at net.com.org.es
Debian Developer  adeodato at debian.org
 
A hacker does for love what other would not do for money.


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

Re: Amendment: GFDL is compatible with DFSG

[Anton Zinoviev]

On Tue, Jan 24, 2006 at 12:17:24PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > Well, if you ask the people that use this man-page they will tell.
> 
> Uh. You'll have to make a choice here: either the text is the entirety
> of _all_ manpages (in which case you can split off the invariant
> sections and the FDL text to different manpages, but you have to
> consider all of them together in order to decide what the overall
> subject matter is), or the text is one manpage specifically (in which
> case you cannot split off the invariant sections and the FDL text to
> different manpages, but you can consider each of them individually in
> order to decide what the overall subject matter is).

I agree, that was confusing.

We were talking for a document with short technical contents and long
secondary sections.  So I imagined a manual distributed in the form of
man-pages where the only technical contents is the description of only
one single command.  Acording to the users the overall subject of that
manual will be the description of the command, not the topic of the
secondary sections.  Most of the users will not read the secondary
sections at all.

If we talk about a manual describing describe more than one command,
then it is easy to make the technical contents more than 50%.
 
> > > Note that you even have the freedom to take a license text and modify
> > > it, including any preamble such a license text might have.
> > 
> > Not exactly.  The BSD-alike licenses allow you do this but other
> > licenses state that "everyone is permitted to copy and distribute
> > verbatim copies of this license document, but changing it is not
> > allowed."
> 
> You're referring to the GPL, right?

No.  That was only a remark that not all licenses allow modifications
in their text.

> No. I meant there that I agree that the actual, practical results of a
> license restriction are more important than whether or not they happen
> to be okay according to some DFSG-guideline; but I do still think that
> DFSG3 requires arbitrary modifications.

I don't understand what you mean.  GPL does not allow arbitrary
modifications.

> > It does not make the useful types of modification impossible.  I
> > already demonstrated why we don't have to put all invariant sections
> > and the full text of GFDL in every single GFDL-covered man-page.
> 
> You failed to do so in a logically and legally sound way.

Look at the following two messages from the thread "The invariant
sections are not forbidden by DFSG" in debian-vote:

http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2006/01/msg00262.html
http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2006/01/msg00267.html

> I was specifically talking about selling printed copies.

OK.

> Oh well. I guess it's clear you won't agree with me, and I'm fed up with
> the same rehash of this very same discussion that's been done for years
> now. It isn't getting us anywhere.

I find our discussion very interesting and usefull.  I agreed with
some of your arguments and it seams to me that you agreed with some of
my arguments.  Moreover, I think I can create something like a FAQ
about GFDL.  Without your help and the help of other opponents I won't
be able to do this.  Definitely, our discussion isn't getting us
nowhere and I must thank you.

Anton Zinoviev


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

Re: Amendment: GFDL is compatible with DFSG

[Anton Zinoviev]

On Tue, Jan 24, 2006 at 04:27:25PM +0200, Kalle Kivimaa wrote:
> 
> So you agree that using permission bits is obstructing the reading, as
> defined in the GFDL?
> 
> >From WordNet (r) 2.0 [wn]:
>   obstruct
>v 1: hinder or prevent the progress or accomplishment of; "His
> brother blocked him at every turn" [syn: {blockade}, {block},
>  {hinder}, {stymie}, {stymy}, {embarrass}]

The following is my reasoning (and similar for "control").

"Progress or accomplishment" means that the process that is being
hindered or prevented has already started.  Hence you can not
"obstruct the reading" if the process of reading has not started yet.
When the permission bit for reading is not set then the reading can
not start.

Anton Zinoviev


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

Re: Amendment: GFDL is compatible with DFSG

[Manoj Srivastava]

On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 18:25:54 +0100, Adeodato Simó <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: 

> * 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...

I think I was partially responding to aj's question about why
 we need it to be two separate GR's. At this point, we can have either
 2 GR's -- one for deciding on the status of GFDL licensed works, with
 or without invariant sections, and a second one for position
 statements --- or conflate them.

manoj
-- 
Tis man's perdition to be safe, when for the truth he ought to die.
Manoj Srivastava   <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C


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

Re: Amendment: GFDL is compatible with DFSG

[Kalle Kivimaa]

Anton Zinoviev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I don't say the copy doesn't matter.  I say that there is no process
> of reading the copy.  Do I control your reading of the image on my

So you agree that using permission bits is obstructing the reading, as
defined in the GFDL?

>From WordNet (r) 2.0 [wn]:
  obstruct
   v 1: hinder or prevent the progress or accomplishment of; "His
brother blocked him at every turn" [syn: {blockade}, {block},
 {hinder}, {stymie}, {stymy}, {embarrass}]

-- 
* 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

[Anton Zinoviev]

On Tue, Jan 24, 2006 at 02:48:20PM +0100, Frank Küster wrote:
> Anton Zinoviev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> > On Tue, Jan 24, 2006 at 02:02:25PM +0100, Frank Küster wrote:
> >> >
> >> > If you do "chmod -r" then I am unable to read the file and there
> >> > exists no reading to control.
> >> 
> >> Come on.  If the directory is world (or just group) readable, there *is*
> >> in fact something to read.  Simply defining that every copy that cannot
> >> be read is not there, and therefore not letting others read it is okay,
> >> is just ridiculous.
> >
> > The copy _is_ there but there exists no reading, so there is nothing
> > to control.  I mean there is no reading of the copy, the directory can
> > be read but it is obviously not covered by GFDL.
> 
> With that reasoning, I would be allowed to make as many copies of my
> WindowsXP CD's as my CD burner manages before it blows up in smoke, as
> long as I don't let anybody else read them.  I repeat: Claiming that a
> copy doesn't matter just because you can't read it, and doing this when
> discussing the specific clause that forbids to obstruct other's reading
> of the copy, is just ridiculous.

I don't say the copy doesn't matter.  I say that there is no process
of reading the copy.  Do I control your reading of the image on my
videomonitor?  Maybe I control you, but not your reading, because
there is no reading at all.  And yet my videomonitor is very real.

Anton Zinoviev


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

Re: Amendment: GFDL is compatible with DFSG

[Frank Küster]

Anton Zinoviev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> On Tue, Jan 24, 2006 at 02:02:25PM +0100, Frank Küster wrote:
>> >
>> > If you do "chmod -r" then I am unable to read the file and there
>> > exists no reading to control.
>> 
>> Come on.  If the directory is world (or just group) readable, there *is*
>> in fact something to read.  Simply defining that every copy that cannot
>> be read is not there, and therefore not letting others read it is okay,
>> is just ridiculous.
>
> The copy _is_ there but there exists no reading, so there is nothing
> to control.  I mean there is no reading of the copy, the directory can
> be read but it is obviously not covered by GFDL.

With that reasoning, I would be allowed to make as many copies of my
WindowsXP CD's as my CD burner manages before it blows up in smoke, as
long as I don't let anybody else read them.  I repeat: Claiming that a
copy doesn't matter just because you can't read it, and doing this when
discussing the specific clause that forbids to obstruct other's reading
of the copy, is just ridiculous.

>> > If you use some technical measures to make me able to read today but
>> > not tomorow a text you gave to me, then you would be controlling the
>> > reading.  The encrypted file systems and "chmod -r" do not achieve
>> > this.
>> 
>> The clause was explicitly introduced to forbid distribution on a
>> particular type of encrypted file system, namely,
>> Digital-Rights-Management-enabled media.  You are wrong.
>
> OK.  That was just an example.  If I give you handheld that allows you
> to read the Glibc manual only today but not tomorow then I would be in
> violation of the license.

Correct, and if you'd give me a handheld with the manual on it, but
encrypted so that it's impossible to read it no matter when, you'd be in
violation of the license, too.  Or if you'd store it in your homedir on
a multiuser machine and remove the r bit for others.

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 Tue, Jan 24, 2006 at 02:02:25PM +0100, Frank Küster wrote:
> >
> > If you do "chmod -r" then I am unable to read the file and there
> > exists no reading to control.
> 
> Come on.  If the directory is world (or just group) readable, there *is*
> in fact something to read.  Simply defining that every copy that cannot
> be read is not there, and therefore not letting others read it is okay,
> is just ridiculous.

The copy _is_ there but there exists no reading, so there is nothing
to control.  I mean there is no reading of the copy, the directory can
be read but it is obviously not covered by GFDL.

> > If you use some technical measures to make me able to read today but
> > not tomorow a text you gave to me, then you would be controlling the
> > reading.  The encrypted file systems and "chmod -r" do not achieve
> > this.
> 
> The clause was explicitly introduced to forbid distribution on a
> particular type of encrypted file system, namely,
> Digital-Rights-Management-enabled media.  You are wrong.

OK.  That was just an example.  If I give you handheld that allows you
to read the Glibc manual only today but not tomorow then I would be in
violation of the license.

Anton Zinoviev


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

Re: Amendment: GFDL is compatible with DFSG

[Frank Küster]

Anton Zinoviev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> On Tue, Jan 24, 2006 at 06:39:41AM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
>> On Sunday 22 January 2006 16:45, Anton Zinoviev wrote:
>> > > 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
>> 
>> Did any of you actually *read* this?  Read it.
>>
>> What it actually *says*, means that storing a copy on a multiuser
>> machine with UNIX permissions set so that it can't be read by
>> everyone is *prohibited*.
>>
>> The permissions are clearly a "technical measure".
>
> Yes, they are.
>
>>  They clearly obstruct and control the reading or further copying of
>> that copy.
>
> No, they can not.  They can not control something that doesn't exist.
>
> If you do "chmod -r" then I am unable to read the file and there
> exists no reading to control.

Come on.  If the directory is world (or just group) readable, there *is*
in fact something to read.  Simply defining that every copy that cannot
be read is not there, and therefore not letting others read it is okay,
is just ridiculous.

> If you use some technical measures to make me able to read today but
> not tomorow a text you gave to me, then you would be controlling the
> reading.  The encrypted file systems and "chmod -r" do not achieve
> this.

The clause was explicitly introduced to forbid distribution on a
particular type of encrypted file system, namely,
Digital-Rights-Management-enabled media.  You are wrong.

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

Re: Amendment: GFDL is compatible with DFSG

[Fabian Fagerholm]

On Tue, 2006-01-24 at 06:39 -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> Did any of you actually *read* this?  Read it.
> 
> What it actually *says*, means that storing a copy on a multiuser machine 
> with 
> UNIX permissions set so that it can't be read by everyone is *prohibited*.
> 
> The permissions are clearly a "technical measure".  They clearly obstruct and 
> control the reading or further copying of that copy.

To me, the problem is evident when pulling out the four different
combinations of "reading", "further copying", "the copies you make" and
"the copies you distribute".

1: You may not use technical measures to obstruct or control the reading
of the copies you make.

2: You may not use technical measures to obstruct or control the reading
of the copies you distribute.

3: You may not use technical measures to obstruct or control the further
copying of the copies you make.

4: You may not use technical measures to obstruct or control the further
copying of the copies you distribute.

Combinations 1 and 3 are the problematic ones, since they restrict what
you can do with your own copy and your own copies of your copy.

Combinations 2 and 4 concern copies that you have given away to others.
The restriction in these cases is quite reasonable, it just means you
don't get to decide how the recipient can read or copy the document.


In any case, I don't think everyone will agree, and explicitly
establishing the freeness of this license by a GR would settle the issue
for those who think it is about opinion.

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


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

Re: Amendment: GFDL is compatible with DFSG

[Anton Zinoviev]

On Tue, Jan 24, 2006 at 06:39:41AM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> On Sunday 22 January 2006 16:45, Anton Zinoviev wrote:
> > > 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
> 
> Did any of you actually *read* this?  Read it.
>
> What it actually *says*, means that storing a copy on a multiuser
> machine with UNIX permissions set so that it can't be read by
> everyone is *prohibited*.
>
> The permissions are clearly a "technical measure".

Yes, they are.

>  They clearly obstruct and control the reading or further copying of
> that copy.

No, they can not.  They can not control something that doesn't exist.

If you do "chmod -r" then I am unable to read the file and there
exists no reading to control.

If you use some technical measures to make me able to read today but
not tomorow a text you gave to me, then you would be controlling the
reading.  The encrypted file systems and "chmod -r" do not achieve
this.

Anton Zinoviev


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

Re: Amendment: GFDL is compatible with DFSG

[Nathanael Nerode]

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> The license is an agreement that regulates one action: the distribution,
> right?
No, unfortunately.

Under copyright law, creating private copies, or private modified copies, is 
one of the exclusive privileges of the copyright holder.  You need permission 
from the copyright holder (or one of the special exemptions such as 'fair 
use') in order to do so.

For a license to be considered DFSG-free, debian-legal believes that it should 
not restrict anything but distribution.  (In fact most of us believe that 
copyright should restrict nothing but distribution.)  However, under the 
current law in every country I know of, a copyright license can restrict 
other things, including private copies.  (And if you look at the EULA 
licenses of most proprietary software, they do restrict them.)

> Is this clause enforcable to your private copies (considering it 
> as a bug)?
Yes.

> or just to the copies you distribute... 
No.

> 
> 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.  And there's the problem with this clause, in a nutshell.

-- 
Nathanael Nerode  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Make sure your vote will count.
http://www.verifiedvoting.org/


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

Re: Amendment: GFDL is compatible with DFSG

[Nathanael Nerode]

On Sunday 22 January 2006 16:45, Anton Zinoviev wrote:
> > 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

Did any of you actually *read* this?  Read it.

What it actually *says*, means that storing a copy on a multiuser machine with 
UNIX permissions set so that it can't be read by everyone is *prohibited*.

The permissions are clearly a "technical measure".  They clearly obstruct and 
control the reading or further copying of that copy.

> > It is not supposed to refer the use of encryption or file access
> > control on your own copy.
And yet it does, clearly, refer to that.  This is what we call "bad drafting".  
We have repeatedly asked the FSF to revise the GFDL to fix this drafting 
error.  They have refused.  (Note that if it only applied to "copies you 
distribute", it would be fine and free.  The problem is that it explicitly 
applies to copies you make and do not distribute.)

When a license clearly says one thing, we do not say "Well, it's OK because 
they probably didn't really mean it."  Doing this is OK if we actually have 
the written, explicit agreement of the copyright holder that s/he didn't 
really mean it.  But it is not a reasonable thing to do for a license applied 
by many disparate copyright holders, or indeed one where the license author 
refuses to fix an obvious drafting error.  Both are the case for the GFDL.

A vote for Anton's GR is a vote to ignore the actual text of licenses entirely 
when determining DFSG-freeness, in favor of some nebulous guess as to what we 
think the license is supposed to mean.  Trust me, if it passes, I will use 
the same argument to get xsnow into main, since the author probably didn't 
intend to restrict modification.

-- 
Nathanael Nerode  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

This space intentionally left blank.


-- 
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 Tue, Jan 24, 2006 at 11:21:34AM +0200, Anton Zinoviev wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 11:49:04PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > > 
> > > 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 gave two examples.

I could also produce examples that have nothing to do with the matter at
hand, that doesn't prove anything.

> > > 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?
> 
> These examples show that my opinion about "overall subject" can be
> confirmed by a more authoritative source, namely the libraries.

I submit that things like medieval texts and poetry are special cases;
in the case of medieval text, a lot of research goes into this; in the
case of any art form (including poetry), there are always people who
think it is nice to give a whole lot of comments on the thing. For both
your examples, it is normal that there is quite some accompanying text.
It is not common for the accompanying text to be longer than the subject
matter itself, but it indeed is not unheard of.

The same cannot be said about technical documentation. I have never seen
technical documentation accompanied by lots of text about different
subject matters, except in the case of the FSF's documentation (and even
then it never amounted to more than the technical documentation itself).

[...]
> BTW, I chose these examples because these are books I realy have, not
> because I can not imagine technical book that proves the same.

Well, I can't. If you can give me an actual example of a technical book
that talks more about non-technical stuff than about the actual
technical subject matter, I'll agree with you. Until that time, I think
it's reasonable to say that the length of both texts is fairly important
in deciding what the overall subject matter really is.

> > 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.
> 
> Well, if you ask the people that use this man-page they will tell.

Uh. You'll have to make a choice here: either the text is the entirety
of _all_ manpages (in which case you can split off the invariant
sections and the FDL text to different manpages, but you have to
consider all of them together in order to decide what the overall
subject matter is), or the text is one manpage specifically (in which
case you cannot split off the invariant sections and the FDL text to
different manpages, but you can consider each of them individually in
order to decide what the overall subject matter is).

You do not try to weasel out of admitting you're wrong by changing your
definition of 'the whole document' when it suits your purpose better.

> > > but the question is why we shouldn't accept [the unmodifiable
> > > sections]?  What basic freedoms of our users we will protect by
> > > doing so?
> > 
> > The freedom to modify the text as they see fit.
> 
> With respect to that freedom GPL is also non-free.

It is not. See below.

> > Note that you even have the freedom to take a license text and modify
> > it, including any preamble such a license text might have.
> 
> Not exactly.  The BSD-alike licenses allow you do this but other
> licenses state that "everyone is permitted to copy and distribute
> verbatim copies of this license document, but changing it is not
> allowed."

You're referring to the GPL, right?

Let me show you this, then:


In short: you are allowed to change it provided you do a few specific
things; one of them is that you must rename your license.

The full copyright statement to the copyright license is not included in
the copyright license itself, probably for reasons of practicality; but
that shouldn't matter.

In fact, the GPL _has_ been modified in the past. See


> > > 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".
> 
> No, it d

Re: Amendment: GFDL is compatible with DFSG

[Fabian Fagerholm]

On Tue, 2006-01-24 at 00:53 -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Yes, and under this license we would still have to keep those sources around
> for a year *after* we stop distributing woody in binary form.  And provide
> for backups & network reliability, since losing our copy would leave us in
> violation of the license.  Given that archive space has been a big issue for
> us over the past year, I don't see how you can assume this is "trivial".

As I said, making the source available from a single location would
probably satisfy the requirement. For instance, promoting
snapshot.debian.net to official status and devoting some resources to
ensuring its reliability would help satisfy the requirement while
providing many other benefits at the same time.

> Wow, you think it's "prudent" to rely on an external organization with whom
> you do not have a contract for your compliance with a license?  Most
> businesses would *not*, and I doubt most judges would either.

The "reasonably prudent steps" refer to the requirement to "... ensure
that this Transparent copy will remain thus accessible at the stated
location until at least one year after the last time you
distribute ...". Such steps could be, for example, to donate money to
Debian via SPI, earmarked something like "for the support of Debian
archive infrastructure, to ensure source is always available".

In the event Debian removes the source in violation of the license, then
"reasonably prudent steps" would be for the CD vendor to set up a source
mirror instead.

I suspect most CD vendors do not keep a complete source mirror of the
GNU FDL material they sell on their CDs (Debian or otherwise).

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


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

Re: Amendment: GFDL is compatible with DFSG

[Anton Zinoviev]

On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 05:39:07PM -0600, Peter Samuelson wrote:
> 
> 
> 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

The license does not require this because on all our mirrors the
transparent copy is always along with the opaque copy.

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

Do you know how many Debian CD vendors ship the binary CDs together
with written offer valid for at least three years, to give any _third
party_, for a charge _no more_ than your cost of physically performing
source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the
corresponding source code.

For the CD vendors the requirement of GPL can be even more impractical
than the requirement of GFDL and as a result they always ship the
source CDs.

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

You can use any way to update the CD images or individual packages
because by doing so you are not controlling the reading and furthure
copying.  Everybody who receives the data is free to read and copy
it.  

If I do not give you access to read some file then I am controlling
you, not your reading - there exists no reading I can control.  I
would be controlling your reading if the copy I gave to you was
protected in such a way that you could read it today but not tomorow.

Anton Zinoviev


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

Re: Amendment: GFDL is compatible with DFSG

[Peter Samuelson]

[Frank Küster]
> > - 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.
> 
> If you propose this as an amendment or alternative text, I'd second it
> (especially if the text uses "comply" and "may comply" equally).

I'd love to but I'm not a Debian developer.

Peter


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Amendment: GFDL is compatible with DFSG

[Steve Langasek]

On Tue, Jan 24, 2006 at 10:05:12AM +0100, David N. Welton wrote:
> Steve Langasek wrote:

> > Wow, you think it's "prudent" to rely on an external organization with whom
> > you do not have a contract for your compliance with a license?  Most
> > businesses would *not*, and I doubt most judges would either.

> Aren't those same organizations relying on us to, say, not attempt to
> distribute Oracle as a .deb in main?

Are you telling me you don't see any difference between trusting Debian to
fulfill *our* obligations under copyright law and relying on us for the
fulfillment of *their* obligations?

-- 
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: Amendment: GFDL is compatible with DFSG

[Anton Zinoviev]

On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 07:59:44PM -0600, Peter Samuelson wrote:
> 
> 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.

They certainly believe the documentation should be free.

> 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.

Maybe they just don't care about your personal opinion what "free
software" means. ;-)

> >You must either include a machine-readable Transparent copy ALONG
> >WITH each Opaque copy
> 
> Yeah, "along with" means "with".

In my dictionary "along" is explained as "in company, in addition"
(the other meanings of "along" are not applicable).  So the license
says "include a machine-readable Transparent copy in addition with
each Opaque copy".  If you include the transparent copy in the
web-server in addition to the opaque copy, then you are in comply with
the requirements of GFDL.

> >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.

"A complete Transparent copy of the Document, free of added material"
clearly means that the transparent copy has to be free of added
material, not the CD image.

> For at least a year after you take down the binary CD images from
> your site.

Only if the the transparent copy is not along with the opaque copy.
On Debian servers the transparent copy is always along with the opaque
copy so there is no need to keep any images for a year.

> 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.

I would agree with you but the license doesn't require this burden.

> > 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?

He said this when I asked him to comment the draft of my proposal.  It
is easy to ask him to confirm that publicly but I don't think this is
necessary because this follows from the most natural interpretation of
the preposition "along with".

> 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.

Do you believe that someone not connected with Debian interprets the
lincense in this peculiar way?  The obvious interpretaion allows us to
place the transparent copy along with the opaque copy on a web server
and to distribute them separately without the one-year requirement.

Anton Zinoviev


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

Re: Amendment: GFDL is compatible with DFSG

[Anton Zinoviev]

On Tue, Jan 24, 2006 at 12:42:27AM +1300, Anthony Towns wrote:
> 
> > 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... ;)

I do not call my fellow developers "naive" because they do not think
this.  In order to not write twice same thing, both to you and to
Wouter Verhelst, I will elaborate in a separate thread.

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

I sent Richard Stallman a draft of my proposal where this paragraph
contained the words "it is our belief that".  The responce by Stallman
was "You can state that as more than just your belief.  It's a fact."

Anton Zinoviev


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

Re: Amendment: GFDL is compatible with DFSG

[Anton Zinoviev]

On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 11:49:04PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > 
> > 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 gave two examples.

> > 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?

These examples show that my opinion about "overall subject" can be
confirmed by a more authoritative source, namely the libraries.  Now,
if you think that there is a difference with respect to "overall
subject" between my examples and a short technical documentation with
long non-technical prefaces and apendixes, then you have to give
argumentation.

BTW, I chose these examples because these are books I realy have, not
because I can not imagine technical book that proves the same.

> 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.

Well, if you ask the people that use this man-page they will tell.

> > but the question is why we shouldn't accept [the unmodifiable
> > sections]?  What basic freedoms of our users we will protect by
> > doing so?
> 
> The freedom to modify the text as they see fit.

With respect to that freedom GPL is also non-free.

> Note that you even have the freedom to take a license text and modify
> it, including any preamble such a license text might have.

Not exactly.  The BSD-alike licenses allow you do this but other
licenses state that "everyone is permitted to copy and distribute
verbatim copies of this license document, but changing it is not
allowed."

> > 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".

No, it doesn't but in that case there must exist more solid
argumentation than just "we don't agree becase we don't want to".

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

And DFSG gives us no advise with respect to invariant sections.  I do
not want to write same things two times for you and Antony Towns so I
will give the answer in a separate thread.  Please respond there.

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

DFSG are not definitive about the invariant sections (see the separate
thread) so we need another principle to help us decide.

But regardless of that, the relevance of GNU's four basic freedoms is
not zero in a Debian context.  At least some of our developers do not
help Debian just because it is fun.  They do this because by
protecting the users freedoms they are doing the right thing.  It is
wonderful to protect human rights like the free speech but we are
programmers and that is our way.

> 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?

Yes, that is what I am saying.  I will write more in the separate
thread I promised.

> If so, then I would submit that you're wrong. I, for one, understand
> that section to mean exactly that: it does require arbitrary
> modifications.

You already agreed that section does not mean exactly that in your
message on "Mon, 23 Jan 2006 10:28:18 +0100".  Citing: "That, I can
agree with. So let's do that: let's see at what restrictions are
imposed, and whether they would allow me...".

> > all we agree that some restrictions are admissible.  What makes the
> > invariant sections not admisible?
> 
> It imposes a burden on some very useful types of modification, and makes
> others legally impossible.

It does not make the useful types of modification impossible.  I
already demonstrated why we don't have to put all invariant sections
and the full text of GFDL in every single GFDL-covered man-page.

> > > > 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
> > > 

Re: Amendment: GFDL is compatible with DFSG

[David N. Welton]

Steve Langasek wrote:

> Wow, you think it's "prudent" to rely on an external organization with whom
> you do not have a contract for your compliance with a license?  Most
> businesses would *not*, and I doubt most judges would either.

Aren't those same organizations relying on us to, say, not attempt to
distribute Oracle as a .deb in main?

-- 
David N. Welton
- http://www.dedasys.com/davidw/

Linux, Open Source Consulting
- http://www.dedasys.com/


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

Re: Amendment: GFDL is compatible with DFSG

[Steve Langasek]

On Tue, Jan 24, 2006 at 10:11:29AM +0200, Fabian Fagerholm wrote:
> On Mon, 2006-01-23 at 17:39 -0600, Peter Samuelson wrote:
> > 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.

> A valid point, but at least the three problems you list don't seem
> sufficiently problematic.

> > 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

> This is hardly impossible, or even difficult. We still retain sources
> for Woody, released in 2002.

Yes, and under this license we would still have to keep those sources around
for a year *after* we stop distributing woody in binary form.  And provide
for backups & network reliability, since losing our copy would leave us in
violation of the license.  Given that archive space has been a big issue for
us over the past year, I don't see how you can assume this is "trivial".

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

> I don't see how GNU FDL, section 3, paragraph 3, amounts to CD vendors
> having to maintain their own mirrors. If Debian already retains source
> for a year, then "reasonably prudent steps" on their part would be to
> point the customer to the Debian mirror network and cease distribution
> when Debian does so.

Wow, you think it's "prudent" to rely on an external organization with whom
you do not have a contract for your compliance with a license?  Most
businesses would *not*, and I doubt most judges would either.

-- 
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: Amendment: GFDL is compatible with DFSG

[Frank Küster]

Peter Samuelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> [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.

If you propose this as an amendment or alternative text, I'd second it
(especially if the text uses "comply" and "may comply" equally).

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

Re: Amendment: GFDL is compatible with DFSG

[Fabian Fagerholm]

On Mon, 2006-01-23 at 17:39 -0600, Peter Samuelson wrote:
> 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.

A valid point, but at least the three problems you list don't seem
sufficiently problematic.

> 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

This is hardly impossible, or even difficult. We still retain sources
for Woody, released in 2002. The arrangement to no longer serve the
binaries is trivial. That said, this is of course a decision for
individuals working on the archive and mirrors. (Also, I suspect having
the source available in one location would satisfy GNU FDL, section 3,
paragraph 3, which is where this claim seems to come from.)

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

I don't see how GNU FDL, section 3, paragraph 3, amounts to CD vendors
having to maintain their own mirrors. If Debian already retains source
for a year, then "reasonably prudent steps" on their part would be to
point the customer to the Debian mirror network and cease distribution
when Debian does so.

Of course, they may choose to distribute for a longer time than Debian,
but that would mean they have to make the arrangements anyway.

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

Do you think section 2 of the GNU FDL leads to this? That's where the
so-called DRM clause is located, which states:

You may not use technical measures to obstruct or control the
reading or further copying of the copies you make or distribute.

I really have a hard time answering the following questions now:

How does rsync-over-ssh obstruct or control the reading of a document?
Are you suggesting it has to be readable in transit?

How does rsync-over-ssh obstruct or control the further copying of a
document? Unless I'm mistaken, the copy will be identical to the
original, and rsync-over-ssh cannot alter the document so that it is
impossible to copy again.

In fact, consider this part of section 3, paragraph 3:

... 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.

Since rsync-over-ssh is a "public-standard network protocol", and since
rsync-over-ssh URLs are "computer-network locations from which the
general network-using public has access to download" given you tell the
user the password or use no authentication, the requirement for
distributing opaque copies ("source") could be fulfilled by providing
rsync-over-ssh access to anyone that the distributor is obliged to
provide opaque copies to.

> 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.

I would suggest supporting the GR on this issue, by seconding my
proposal and/or making an amendment.

-- 
Fabian Fagerholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>


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

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: 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: 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: 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

[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 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: 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

[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: 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

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

[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]

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

[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: 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

[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

[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

[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: 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: 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

[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

[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

[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

[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: 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 12:13:03AM -0600, Peter Samuelson wrote:
> [Wouter Verhelst]
> > I will _not_ second this proposal. Moreover, I would like to ask any
> > Debian Developer who's thinking of doing a second to consider what it
> > would imply.
> 
> Seconding doesn't mean voting for.

I know that. However, I have the that Anton proposed this amendment
because he didn't see the arguments against it earlier, and am afraid
that many people would feel the same way as he does. I don't think
having this on our ballot would be a good thing.

That being said, of course if the amendment would make it onto the
ballot, then there's nothing I can do about that; but I thought it was
necessary to try and prevent that.

[...]
> In other words, if this amendment does get on the ballot, the spectre
> of "invariant sections are just fine" should go away once and for all.

People who think that way will probably vote for 'Further Discussion' if
this option does not make it onto the ballot. That's what that option is
for.

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


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

Re: Amendment: GFDL is compatible with DFSG

[Peter Samuelson]

[Wouter Verhelst]
> I will _not_ second this proposal. Moreover, I would like to ask any
> Debian Developer who's thinking of doing a second to consider what it
> would imply.

Seconding doesn't mean voting for.  Often someone will second an
amendment just to ensure that it gets on the ballot.  That probably
makes sense in this case, in order to ensure that it is defeated
decisively, so that GFDL proponents of the future cannot claim the
support of a "silent majority" of Debian developers.

In other words, if this amendment does get on the ballot, the spectre
of "invariant sections are just fine" should go away once and for all.


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Amendment: GFDL is compatible with DFSG

[Wouter Verhelst]

I will _not_ second this proposal. Moreover, I would like to ask any
Debian Developer who's thinking of doing a second to consider what it
would imply.

Legalese is not programming. See below.

On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 01:45:40AM +0200, Anton Zinoviev wrote:
> (2) The Invariant Sections - Main Objection Against GFDL
[...]
> 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.

This argument has been brought up a number of times already, but it does
not hold.

The requirement in the GPL to display warranty or license announcements
is not absolute; it specifically states that you must only print such
announcements if the program 'normally reads commands interactively when
run'. In other words, if you modify the program to do something entirely
different in such a way that these license or warranty messages would
become problematic, you are allowed to remove them.

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.

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).

> 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.

> 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.

[...]
> (3) Transparent copies
> 
> Another objections against GFDL is that according to GFDL it is not
> enough to just put a transparent copy of a document alongside with the
> opaque version when you are distributing it (which is all that you
> need to do for sources under the GPL, for example). Instead, the GFDL
> insists that you must somehow include a machine-readable Transparent
> copy (i.e., not allow the opaque form to be downloaded without the
> transparent form) or keep the transparent form available for dow

Re: Amendment: GFDL is compatible with DFSG

[Wesley J. Landaker]

I second this amendment, quoted in full below:

On Sunday 22 January 2006 16:45, 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
> ~~
>
> (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 announ

Amendment: GFDL is compatible with DFSG

[Anton Zinoviev]

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
~~

(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 license