Re: GFDL GR: Amendment: invariant-less in main v2
> > I *hope* that this amendment is simply supposed to mean that the Developers > > don't believe that the DRM clause imposes such restrictions (despite the fact > > that reading it literally, it does). But at the moment, which of these two > > positions is being pushed by the amendment is not clear to me. Adeodato? > > The latter. From the last paragraph in my mail: Thanks for replying on the public mailing list and making this clear to everyone including me. That eases my worries about this. Because it means that if a copyright holder actually does start talking about enforcing the GFDL on a work in a literalistic way which includes all the restrictions we find unacceptable, Debian *will* remove that work. Which is what really matters. :-) -- 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: GFDL GR: Amendment: invariant-less in main v2
* Nathanael Nerode [Fri, 10 Feb 2006 01:51:33 -0500]: Hi, > So, does this mean that if this amendment is passed, outlawing storing a copy > of a document with non-world-readable permission is considered an acceptable, > free restriction by the Developers? Really? > I *hope* that this amendment is simply supposed to mean that the Developers > don't believe that the DRM clause imposes such restrictions (despite the fact > that reading it literally, it does). But at the moment, which of these two > positions is being pushed by the amendment is not clear to me. Adeodato? The latter. From the last paragraph in my mail: | I don't see much point in carrying details about the other two issues, | when they don't affect us at all. Cheers, -- Adeodato Simó dato at net.com.org.es Debian Developer adeodato at debian.org Loan-department manager: "There isn't any fine print. At these interest rates, we don't need it." -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GFDL GR: Amendment: invariant-less in main v2
I second Adeodato's revised amendment, as I did the earlier version. Thanks to Adeodato and everyone who contributed... Hamish On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 06:26:27AM +0100, Adeodato Simó wrote: > ---8<--- > > Debian and the GNU Free Documentation License > = > > This is the position of the Debian Project about the GNU Free Documentation > License as published by the Free Software Foundation: > > 1. We consider that the GNU Free Documentation License version 1.2 > conflicts with traditional requirements for free software, since it > allows for non-removable, non-modifiable parts to be present in > documents licensed under it. Such parts are commonly referred to as > "invariant sections", and are described in Section 4 of the GFDL. > > As modifiability is a fundamental requirement of the Debian Free > Software Guidelines, this restriction is not acceptable for us, and > we cannot accept in our distribution works that include such > unmodifiable content. > > 2. At the same time, we also consider that works licensed under the > GNU Free Documentation License that include no invariant sections > do fully meet the requirements of the Debian Free Software > Guidelines. > > This means that works that don't include any Invariant Sections, > Cover Texts, Acknowledgements, and Dedications (or that do, but > permission to remove them is explicitly granted), are suitable for > the main component of our distribution. > > 3. Despite the above, GFDL'd documentation is still not free of > trouble, even for works with no invariant sections: as an example, > it is incompatible with the major free software licenses, which > means that GFDL'd text can't be incorporated into free programs. > > For this reason, we encourage documentation authors to license > their works (or dual-license, together with the GFDL) under the > same terms as the software they refer to, or any of the traditional > free software licenses like the the GPL or the BSD license. > > --->8--- -- Hamish Moffatt VK3SB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: GFDL GR: Amendment: invariant-less in main v2
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > - several people expressed the view that they interpreted the wording > differently, as in "it states that some GFDL-licensed works meet > the DFSG, and thus are suitable for main", for which a 1:1 > majority would be enough. ... > All the relevant information about the > invariant sections problem is in the first paragraph anyway, and I > don't see much point in carrying details about the other two issues, > when they don't affect us at all. (This has been discussed elsewhere, > but if somebody does still have concerns over the DRM clause, or the > Transparent Copies one, I guess we can go over them again.) I just want to be clear on this. This proposal, if adopted, is a statement by the developers that the "DRM clause" and "Transparent Copies" clause, and any identical clauses stuck into other licenses, are presumed DFSG-free. Right? No comment or criticism was made in version 1 or 2 of this amendment on the problems found with these clauses. The list of which were included verbatim in version 1 of this amendment, and included bits such as: (c) As written, it would outlaw actions like changing the permission of a copy of the document on your machine, storing it on an encrypted file system, distributing a copy over an encrypted link (Obstruct or control the reading is not clarified to apply merely to the recipient), or even storing it on a file-sharing system with non-world-readable permission So, does this mean that if this amendment is passed, outlawing storing a copy of a document with non-world-readable permission is considered an acceptable, free restriction by the Developers? Really? I *hope* that this amendment is simply supposed to mean that the Developers don't believe that the DRM clause imposes such restrictions (despite the fact that reading it literally, it does). But at the moment, which of these two positions is being pushed by the amendment is not clear to me. Adeodato? -- 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: GFDL GR: Amendment: invariant-less in main v2
"Wouter Verhelst" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote, Thursday, February 09, 2006 8:08 AM > On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 06:26:27AM +0100, Adeodato Simó wrote: [...] >> For this reason, we encourage documentation authors to license >> their works (or dual-license, together with the GFDL) under the >> same terms as the software they refer to, or any of the traditional > shouldn't this line end like "or _under_ any of the traditional"? >> free software licenses like the the GPL or the BSD license. Nope, the lack of a second "under" is fine (in en_GB, at least). The use of license as both a noun and a verb, otoh, is an en_USism. Regards, Adam -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GFDL GR: Amendment: invariant-less in main v2
On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 06:26:27AM +0100, Adeodato Simó wrote: [...] > Debian and the GNU Free Documentation License > = > > This is the position of the Debian Project about the GNU Free Documentation > License as published by the Free Software Foundation: > > 1. We consider that the GNU Free Documentation License version 1.2 > conflicts with traditional requirements for free software, since it > allows for non-removable, non-modifiable parts to be present in > documents licensed under it. Such parts are commonly referred to as > "invariant sections", and are described in Section 4 of the GFDL. > > As modifiability is a fundamental requirement of the Debian Free > Software Guidelines, this restriction is not acceptable for us, and > we cannot accept in our distribution works that include such > unmodifiable content. > > 2. At the same time, we also consider that works licensed under the > GNU Free Documentation License that include no invariant sections > do fully meet the requirements of the Debian Free Software > Guidelines. > > This means that works that don't include any Invariant Sections, > Cover Texts, Acknowledgements, and Dedications (or that do, but > permission to remove them is explicitly granted), are suitable for > the main component of our distribution. > > 3. Despite the above, GFDL'd documentation is still not free of > trouble, even for works with no invariant sections: as an example, > it is incompatible with the major free software licenses, which > means that GFDL'd text can't be incorporated into free programs. > > For this reason, we encourage documentation authors to license > their works (or dual-license, together with the GFDL) under the > same terms as the software they refer to, or any of the traditional shouldn't this line end like "or _under_ any of the traditional"? > free software licenses like the the GPL or the BSD license. That being said, I second this proposal (with or without that fix). Originally I thought the DRM and transparent requirements were problematic, but the discussion in the thread sparked by Anton's amendment has convinced me that these are nothing more than just technicalities, with no serious real-life impact. The same, however, cannot be said about invariant sections. -- Fun will now commence -- Seven Of Nine, "Ashes to Ashes", stardate 53679.4 signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: GFDL GR: Amendment: invariant-less in main v2
Re: Adeodato Simó in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > ---8<--- > > Debian and the GNU Free Documentation License > = > > This is the position of the Debian Project about the GNU Free Documentation > License as published by the Free Software Foundation: > > 1. We consider that the GNU Free Documentation License version 1.2 > conflicts with traditional requirements for free software, since it > allows for non-removable, non-modifiable parts to be present in > documents licensed under it. Such parts are commonly referred to as > "invariant sections", and are described in Section 4 of the GFDL. > > As modifiability is a fundamental requirement of the Debian Free > Software Guidelines, this restriction is not acceptable for us, and > we cannot accept in our distribution works that include such > unmodifiable content. > > 2. At the same time, we also consider that works licensed under the > GNU Free Documentation License that include no invariant sections > do fully meet the requirements of the Debian Free Software > Guidelines. > > This means that works that don't include any Invariant Sections, > Cover Texts, Acknowledgements, and Dedications (or that do, but > permission to remove them is explicitly granted), are suitable for > the main component of our distribution. > > 3. Despite the above, GFDL'd documentation is still not free of > trouble, even for works with no invariant sections: as an example, > it is incompatible with the major free software licenses, which > means that GFDL'd text can't be incorporated into free programs. > > For this reason, we encourage documentation authors to license > their works (or dual-license, together with the GFDL) under the > same terms as the software they refer to, or any of the traditional > free software licenses like the the GPL or the BSD license. > > --->8--- Seconded. Christoph -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.df7cb.de/ signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: GFDL GR: Amendment: invariant-less in main v2
I second the amendment quoted below.
On Wednesday 08 February 2006 22:26, Adeodato Simó wrote:
> Hello,
>
> After my amendment to the GFDL GR was accepted, there was a bit of
> discussion about the majority requirement that should be put on it. In
> a nutshell, this is what happened:
>
> - in what may have been a bad decision but seemed appropriate at the
> time, I wrote the amendment from a "Position Statement" point of
> view, and concentrated on what we'd be doing, and overlooked being
> particularly clear on the internals of such actions.
>
> - the Secretary's best judgment was that the wording implied a
> modification of the Social Contract ("an exception is being made
> for some non-free works"), and thus in fulfillment of his duties
> put a 3:1 majority requirement on the amendment.
>
> - several people expressed the view that they interpreted the wording
> differently, as in "it states that some GFDL-licensed works meet
> the DFSG, and thus are suitable for main", for which a 1:1
> majority would be enough.
>
> - the Secretary expressed his willingness to adjust the majority
> requirement if the wording of the amendment was corrected to
> remove the ambiguity; this is where we are now.
>
> So here's a revised version of the original amendment, which Manoj has
> ACK'ed, and for which I expect to receive soon the necessary ACKs from
> my original seconders (CC'ed) so that it can replace the previous one.
>
> Apart from clarifying the wording of paragraph 2, I've dropped the
> "Problems of the GFDL" section, which results in a much more brief and
> straightforward statement. All the relevant information about the
> invariant sections problem is in the first paragraph anyway, and I
> don't see much point in carrying details about the other two issues,
> when they don't affect us at all. (This has been discussed elsewhere,
> but if somebody does still have concerns over the DRM clause, or the
> Transparent Copies one, I guess we can go over them again.)
>
> Thanks.
>
> ---8<---
>
> Debian and the GNU Free Documentation License
> =
>
> This is the position of the Debian Project about the GNU Free
> Documentation License as published by the Free Software Foundation:
>
> 1. We consider that the GNU Free Documentation License version 1.2
> conflicts with traditional requirements for free software, since it
> allows for non-removable, non-modifiable parts to be present in
> documents licensed under it. Such parts are commonly referred to as
> "invariant sections", and are described in Section 4 of the GFDL.
>
> As modifiability is a fundamental requirement of the Debian Free
> Software Guidelines, this restriction is not acceptable for us, and
> we cannot accept in our distribution works that include such
> unmodifiable content.
>
> 2. At the same time, we also consider that works licensed under the
> GNU Free Documentation License that include no invariant sections
> do fully meet the requirements of the Debian Free Software
> Guidelines.
>
> This means that works that don't include any Invariant Sections,
> Cover Texts, Acknowledgements, and Dedications (or that do, but
> permission to remove them is explicitly granted), are suitable for
> the main component of our distribution.
>
> 3. Despite the above, GFDL'd documentation is still not free of
> trouble, even for works with no invariant sections: as an example,
> it is incompatible with the major free software licenses, which
> means that GFDL'd text can't be incorporated into free programs.
>
> For this reason, we encourage documentation authors to license
> their works (or dual-license, together with the GFDL) under the
> same terms as the software they refer to, or any of the traditional
> free software licenses like the the GPL or the BSD license.
>
> --->8---
--
Wesley J. Landaker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
OpenPGP FP: 4135 2A3B 4726 ACC5 9094 0097 F0A9 8A4C 4CD6 E3D2
pgpVnSJb9DD0U.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Re: GFDL GR: Amendment: invariant-less in main v2
* Adeodato Simó <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-02-09 06:26]: > So here's a revised version of the original amendment, which Manoj has > ACK'ed, and for which I expect to receive soon the necessary ACKs from > my original seconders (CC'ed) so that it can replace the previous one. seconded (again). > Debian and the GNU Free Documentation License > = > > This is the position of the Debian Project about the GNU Free Documentation > License as published by the Free Software Foundation: > > 1. We consider that the GNU Free Documentation License version 1.2 > conflicts with traditional requirements for free software, since it > allows for non-removable, non-modifiable parts to be present in > documents licensed under it. Such parts are commonly referred to as > "invariant sections", and are described in Section 4 of the GFDL. > > As modifiability is a fundamental requirement of the Debian Free > Software Guidelines, this restriction is not acceptable for us, and > we cannot accept in our distribution works that include such > unmodifiable content. > > 2. At the same time, we also consider that works licensed under the > GNU Free Documentation License that include no invariant sections > do fully meet the requirements of the Debian Free Software > Guidelines. > > This means that works that don't include any Invariant Sections, > Cover Texts, Acknowledgements, and Dedications (or that do, but > permission to remove them is explicitly granted), are suitable for > the main component of our distribution. > > 3. Despite the above, GFDL'd documentation is still not free of > trouble, even for works with no invariant sections: as an example, > it is incompatible with the major free software licenses, which > means that GFDL'd text can't be incorporated into free programs. > > For this reason, we encourage documentation authors to license > their works (or dual-license, together with the GFDL) under the > same terms as the software they refer to, or any of the traditional > free software licenses like the the GPL or the BSD license. > > --->8--- -- Martin Michlmayr http://www.cyrius.com/ signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: GFDL GR: Amendment: invariant-less in main v2
I second the amendment quoted below. Christopher Martin On Thursday 09 February 2006 00:26, Adeodato Simó wrote: > Debian and the GNU Free Documentation License > = > > This is the position of the Debian Project about the GNU Free > Documentation License as published by the Free Software Foundation: > > 1. We consider that the GNU Free Documentation License version 1.2 > conflicts with traditional requirements for free software, since it > allows for non-removable, non-modifiable parts to be present in > documents licensed under it. Such parts are commonly referred to as > "invariant sections", and are described in Section 4 of the GFDL. > > As modifiability is a fundamental requirement of the Debian Free > Software Guidelines, this restriction is not acceptable for us, and > we cannot accept in our distribution works that include such > unmodifiable content. > > 2. At the same time, we also consider that works licensed under the > GNU Free Documentation License that include no invariant sections > do fully meet the requirements of the Debian Free Software > Guidelines. > > This means that works that don't include any Invariant Sections, > Cover Texts, Acknowledgements, and Dedications (or that do, but > permission to remove them is explicitly granted), are suitable for > the main component of our distribution. > > 3. Despite the above, GFDL'd documentation is still not free of > trouble, even for works with no invariant sections: as an example, > it is incompatible with the major free software licenses, which > means that GFDL'd text can't be incorporated into free programs. > > For this reason, we encourage documentation authors to license > their works (or dual-license, together with the GFDL) under the > same terms as the software they refer to, or any of the traditional > free software licenses like the the GPL or the BSD license. pgp2RVIWyx89g.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: GFDL GR: Amendment: invariant-less in main v2
> So here's a revised version of the original amendment, which Manoj has > ACK'ed, and for which I expect to receive soon the necessary ACKs from > my original seconders (CC'ed) so that it can replace the previous one. Seconded. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: GFDL GR: Amendment: invariant-less in main v2
Seconded.
On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 06:26:27AM +0100, Adeodato Simó wrote:
> Hello,
>
> After my amendment to the GFDL GR was accepted, there was a bit of
> discussion about the majority requirement that should be put on it. In
> a nutshell, this is what happened:
>
> - in what may have been a bad decision but seemed appropriate at the
> time, I wrote the amendment from a "Position Statement" point of
> view, and concentrated on what we'd be doing, and overlooked being
> particularly clear on the internals of such actions.
>
> - the Secretary's best judgment was that the wording implied a
> modification of the Social Contract ("an exception is being made
> for some non-free works"), and thus in fulfillment of his duties
> put a 3:1 majority requirement on the amendment.
>
> - several people expressed the view that they interpreted the wording
> differently, as in "it states that some GFDL-licensed works meet
> the DFSG, and thus are suitable for main", for which a 1:1
> majority would be enough.
>
> - the Secretary expressed his willingness to adjust the majority
> requirement if the wording of the amendment was corrected to
> remove the ambiguity; this is where we are now.
>
> So here's a revised version of the original amendment, which Manoj has
> ACK'ed, and for which I expect to receive soon the necessary ACKs from
> my original seconders (CC'ed) so that it can replace the previous one.
>
> Apart from clarifying the wording of paragraph 2, I've dropped the
> "Problems of the GFDL" section, which results in a much more brief and
> straightforward statement. All the relevant information about the
> invariant sections problem is in the first paragraph anyway, and I
> don't see much point in carrying details about the other two issues,
> when they don't affect us at all. (This has been discussed elsewhere,
> but if somebody does still have concerns over the DRM clause, or the
> Transparent Copies one, I guess we can go over them again.)
>
> Thanks.
>
> ---8<---
>
> Debian and the GNU Free Documentation License
> =
>
> This is the position of the Debian Project about the GNU Free Documentation
> License as published by the Free Software Foundation:
>
> 1. We consider that the GNU Free Documentation License version 1.2
> conflicts with traditional requirements for free software, since it
> allows for non-removable, non-modifiable parts to be present in
> documents licensed under it. Such parts are commonly referred to as
> "invariant sections", and are described in Section 4 of the GFDL.
>
> As modifiability is a fundamental requirement of the Debian Free
> Software Guidelines, this restriction is not acceptable for us, and
> we cannot accept in our distribution works that include such
> unmodifiable content.
>
> 2. At the same time, we also consider that works licensed under the
> GNU Free Documentation License that include no invariant sections
> do fully meet the requirements of the Debian Free Software
> Guidelines.
>
> This means that works that don't include any Invariant Sections,
> Cover Texts, Acknowledgements, and Dedications (or that do, but
> permission to remove them is explicitly granted), are suitable for
> the main component of our distribution.
>
> 3. Despite the above, GFDL'd documentation is still not free of
> trouble, even for works with no invariant sections: as an example,
> it is incompatible with the major free software licenses, which
> means that GFDL'd text can't be incorporated into free programs.
>
> For this reason, we encourage documentation authors to license
> their works (or dual-license, together with the GFDL) under the
> same terms as the software they refer to, or any of the traditional
> free software licenses like the the GPL or the BSD license.
>
> --->8---
>
> --
> Adeodato Simó dato at net.com.org.es
> Debian Developer adeodato at debian.org
>
> Ara que ets la meva dona, te la fotré fins a la melsa, bacona!
> -- Borja Álvaro a Miranda Boronat en «Chulas y famosas»
--
1024D/E65A7801 Zephaniah E. Hull <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
92ED 94E4 B1E6 3624 226D 5727 4453 008B E65A 7801
CCs of replies from mailing lists are requested.
There are mushrooms that can survive weeks, months without air or
food. They just dry out and when water comes back, they wake up
again. And call the helldesk about their password expiring.
-- after Jens Benecke and Tanuki the Raccoon-dog, in ASR:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Re: GFDL GR: Amendment: invariant-less in main v2
Adeodato Simó wrote: > Debian and the GNU Free Documentation License > = > > This is the position of the Debian Project about the GNU Free Documentation > License as published by the Free Software Foundation: > > 1. We consider that the GNU Free Documentation License version 1.2 > conflicts with traditional requirements for free software, since it > allows for non-removable, non-modifiable parts to be present in > documents licensed under it. Such parts are commonly referred to as > "invariant sections", and are described in Section 4 of the GFDL. > > As modifiability is a fundamental requirement of the Debian Free > Software Guidelines, this restriction is not acceptable for us, and > we cannot accept in our distribution works that include such > unmodifiable content. > > 2. At the same time, we also consider that works licensed under the > GNU Free Documentation License that include no invariant sections > do fully meet the requirements of the Debian Free Software > Guidelines. > > This means that works that don't include any Invariant Sections, > Cover Texts, Acknowledgements, and Dedications (or that do, but > permission to remove them is explicitly granted), are suitable for > the main component of our distribution. > > 3. Despite the above, GFDL'd documentation is still not free of > trouble, even for works with no invariant sections: as an example, > it is incompatible with the major free software licenses, which > means that GFDL'd text can't be incorporated into free programs. > > For this reason, we encourage documentation authors to license > their works (or dual-license, together with the GFDL) under the > same terms as the software they refer to, or any of the traditional > free software licenses like the the GPL or the BSD license. I second it. Cheers, Moritz signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: GFDL GR: Amendment: invariant-less in main v2
seconded (again).
also sprach Adeodato Simó <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006.02.09.0626 +0100]:
> Hello,
>
> After my amendment to the GFDL GR was accepted, there was a bit of
> discussion about the majority requirement that should be put on it. In
> a nutshell, this is what happened:
>
> - in what may have been a bad decision but seemed appropriate at the
> time, I wrote the amendment from a "Position Statement" point of
> view, and concentrated on what we'd be doing, and overlooked being
> particularly clear on the internals of such actions.
>
> - the Secretary's best judgment was that the wording implied a
> modification of the Social Contract ("an exception is being made
> for some non-free works"), and thus in fulfillment of his duties
> put a 3:1 majority requirement on the amendment.
>
> - several people expressed the view that they interpreted the wording
> differently, as in "it states that some GFDL-licensed works meet
> the DFSG, and thus are suitable for main", for which a 1:1
> majority would be enough.
>
> - the Secretary expressed his willingness to adjust the majority
> requirement if the wording of the amendment was corrected to
> remove the ambiguity; this is where we are now.
>
> So here's a revised version of the original amendment, which Manoj has
> ACK'ed, and for which I expect to receive soon the necessary ACKs from
> my original seconders (CC'ed) so that it can replace the previous one.
>
> Apart from clarifying the wording of paragraph 2, I've dropped the
> "Problems of the GFDL" section, which results in a much more brief and
> straightforward statement. All the relevant information about the
> invariant sections problem is in the first paragraph anyway, and I
> don't see much point in carrying details about the other two issues,
> when they don't affect us at all. (This has been discussed elsewhere,
> but if somebody does still have concerns over the DRM clause, or the
> Transparent Copies one, I guess we can go over them again.)
>
> Thanks.
>
> ---8<---
>
> Debian and the GNU Free Documentation License
> =
>
> This is the position of the Debian Project about the GNU Free Documentation
> License as published by the Free Software Foundation:
>
> 1. We consider that the GNU Free Documentation License version 1.2
> conflicts with traditional requirements for free software, since it
> allows for non-removable, non-modifiable parts to be present in
> documents licensed under it. Such parts are commonly referred to as
> "invariant sections", and are described in Section 4 of the GFDL.
>
> As modifiability is a fundamental requirement of the Debian Free
> Software Guidelines, this restriction is not acceptable for us, and
> we cannot accept in our distribution works that include such
> unmodifiable content.
>
> 2. At the same time, we also consider that works licensed under the
> GNU Free Documentation License that include no invariant sections
> do fully meet the requirements of the Debian Free Software
> Guidelines.
>
> This means that works that don't include any Invariant Sections,
> Cover Texts, Acknowledgements, and Dedications (or that do, but
> permission to remove them is explicitly granted), are suitable for
> the main component of our distribution.
>
> 3. Despite the above, GFDL'd documentation is still not free of
> trouble, even for works with no invariant sections: as an example,
> it is incompatible with the major free software licenses, which
> means that GFDL'd text can't be incorporated into free programs.
>
> For this reason, we encourage documentation authors to license
> their works (or dual-license, together with the GFDL) under the
> same terms as the software they refer to, or any of the traditional
> free software licenses like the the GPL or the BSD license.
>
> --->8---
>
> --
> Adeodato Simó dato at net.com.org.es
> Debian Developer adeodato at debian.org
>
> Ara que ets la meva dona, te la fotré fins a la melsa, bacona!
> -- Borja Álvaro a Miranda Boronat en «Chulas y famosas»
--
Please do not send copies of list mail to me; I read the list!
.''`. martin f. krafft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
: :' :proud Debian developer and author: http://debiansystem.info
`. `'`
`- Debian - when you have better things to do than fixing a system
Invalid/expired PGP (sub)keys? Use subkeys.pgp.net as keyserver!
"auch der mutigste von uns hat nur selten den mut zu dem,
was er eigentlich weiß."
- friedrich nietzsche
sign
Re: GFDL GR: Amendment: invariant-less in main v2
On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 06:26:27AM +0100, Adeodato Simó wrote: >---8<--- > >Debian and the GNU Free Documentation License >= > >This is the position of the Debian Project about the GNU Free Documentation >License as published by the Free Software Foundation: > > 1. We consider that the GNU Free Documentation License version 1.2 > conflicts with traditional requirements for free software, since it > allows for non-removable, non-modifiable parts to be present in > documents licensed under it. Such parts are commonly referred to as > "invariant sections", and are described in Section 4 of the GFDL. > > As modifiability is a fundamental requirement of the Debian Free > Software Guidelines, this restriction is not acceptable for us, and > we cannot accept in our distribution works that include such > unmodifiable content. > > 2. At the same time, we also consider that works licensed under the > GNU Free Documentation License that include no invariant sections > do fully meet the requirements of the Debian Free Software > Guidelines. > > This means that works that don't include any Invariant Sections, > Cover Texts, Acknowledgements, and Dedications (or that do, but > permission to remove them is explicitly granted), are suitable for > the main component of our distribution. > > 3. Despite the above, GFDL'd documentation is still not free of > trouble, even for works with no invariant sections: as an example, > it is incompatible with the major free software licenses, which > means that GFDL'd text can't be incorporated into free programs. > > For this reason, we encourage documentation authors to license > their works (or dual-license, together with the GFDL) under the > same terms as the software they refer to, or any of the traditional > free software licenses like the the GPL or the BSD license. > >--->8--- Seconded. Aníbal Monsalve Salazar -- .''`. Debian GNU/Linux : :' : Free Operating System `. `' http://debian.org/ `- http://v7w.com/anibal signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: GFDL GR: Amendment: invariant-less in main v2
I second the Amendment fully quoted below.
On Thursday 09 February 2006 06:26, Adeodato Simó wrote:
> Hello,
>
> After my amendment to the GFDL GR was accepted, there was a bit of
> discussion about the majority requirement that should be put on it. In
> a nutshell, this is what happened:
>
> - in what may have been a bad decision but seemed appropriate at the
> time, I wrote the amendment from a "Position Statement" point of
> view, and concentrated on what we'd be doing, and overlooked being
> particularly clear on the internals of such actions.
>
> - the Secretary's best judgment was that the wording implied a
> modification of the Social Contract ("an exception is being made
> for some non-free works"), and thus in fulfillment of his duties
> put a 3:1 majority requirement on the amendment.
>
> - several people expressed the view that they interpreted the wording
> differently, as in "it states that some GFDL-licensed works meet
> the DFSG, and thus are suitable for main", for which a 1:1
> majority would be enough.
>
> - the Secretary expressed his willingness to adjust the majority
> requirement if the wording of the amendment was corrected to
> remove the ambiguity; this is where we are now.
>
> So here's a revised version of the original amendment, which Manoj has
> ACK'ed, and for which I expect to receive soon the necessary ACKs from
> my original seconders (CC'ed) so that it can replace the previous one.
>
> Apart from clarifying the wording of paragraph 2, I've dropped the
> "Problems of the GFDL" section, which results in a much more brief and
> straightforward statement. All the relevant information about the
> invariant sections problem is in the first paragraph anyway, and I
> don't see much point in carrying details about the other two issues,
> when they don't affect us at all. (This has been discussed elsewhere,
> but if somebody does still have concerns over the DRM clause, or the
> Transparent Copies one, I guess we can go over them again.)
>
> Thanks.
>
> ---8<---
>
> Debian and the GNU Free Documentation License
> =
>
> This is the position of the Debian Project about the GNU Free Documentation
> License as published by the Free Software Foundation:
>
> 1. We consider that the GNU Free Documentation License version 1.2
> conflicts with traditional requirements for free software, since it
> allows for non-removable, non-modifiable parts to be present in
> documents licensed under it. Such parts are commonly referred to as
> "invariant sections", and are described in Section 4 of the GFDL.
>
> As modifiability is a fundamental requirement of the Debian Free
> Software Guidelines, this restriction is not acceptable for us, and
> we cannot accept in our distribution works that include such
> unmodifiable content.
>
> 2. At the same time, we also consider that works licensed under the
> GNU Free Documentation License that include no invariant sections
> do fully meet the requirements of the Debian Free Software
> Guidelines.
>
> This means that works that don't include any Invariant Sections,
> Cover Texts, Acknowledgements, and Dedications (or that do, but
> permission to remove them is explicitly granted), are suitable for
> the main component of our distribution.
>
> 3. Despite the above, GFDL'd documentation is still not free of
> trouble, even for works with no invariant sections: as an example,
> it is incompatible with the major free software licenses, which
> means that GFDL'd text can't be incorporated into free programs.
>
> For this reason, we encourage documentation authors to license
> their works (or dual-license, together with the GFDL) under the
> same terms as the software they refer to, or any of the traditional
> free software licenses like the the GPL or the BSD license.
>
> --->8---
pgpwjCndyQ0Gz.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Re: GFDL GR: Amendment: invariant-less in main v2
On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 06:26:27AM +0100, Adeodato Sim?? wrote: > So here's a revised version of the original amendment, which Manoj has > ACK'ed, and for which I expect to receive soon the necessary ACKs from > my original seconders (CC'ed) so that it can replace the previous one. As per A.1(3) I don't accept this amendment to the original proposal, so it should be voted on separately, presuming it gets enough sponsors. > ---8<--- > Debian and the GNU Free Documentation License > = > > This is the position of the Debian Project about the GNU Free Documentation > License as published by the Free Software Foundation: > > 1. We consider that the GNU Free Documentation License version 1.2 > conflicts with traditional requirements for free software, since it > allows for non-removable, non-modifiable parts to be present in > documents licensed under it. Such parts are commonly referred to as > "invariant sections", and are described in Section 4 of the GFDL. > > As modifiability is a fundamental requirement of the Debian Free > Software Guidelines, this restriction is not acceptable for us, and > we cannot accept in our distribution works that include such > unmodifiable content. > > 2. At the same time, we also consider that works licensed under the > GNU Free Documentation License that include no invariant sections > do fully meet the requirements of the Debian Free Software > Guidelines. > > This means that works that don't include any Invariant Sections, > Cover Texts, Acknowledgements, and Dedications (or that do, but > permission to remove them is explicitly granted), are suitable for > the main component of our distribution. > > 3. Despite the above, GFDL'd documentation is still not free of > trouble, even for works with no invariant sections: as an example, > it is incompatible with the major free software licenses, which > means that GFDL'd text can't be incorporated into free programs. > > For this reason, we encourage documentation authors to license > their works (or dual-license, together with the GFDL) under the > same terms as the software they refer to, or any of the traditional > free software licenses like the the GPL or the BSD license. > --->8--- That said, seconded; I'm not sure at the moment whether I prefer this over my original proposal or not, but I do think the above's clear and justifiable, and worthy of the project. I expect I'll be calling for a vote when this proposal gets sufficient seconds, unless someone else beats me to it. Cheers, aj signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: GFDL GR: Amendment: invariant-less in main v2
Heya, I second the Amendment fully quoted below. Marc > Debian and the GNU Free Documentation License > = > > This is the position of the Debian Project about the GNU Free Documentation > License as published by the Free Software Foundation: > > 1. We consider that the GNU Free Documentation License version 1.2 > conflicts with traditional requirements for free software, since it > allows for non-removable, non-modifiable parts to be present in > documents licensed under it. Such parts are commonly referred to as > "invariant sections", and are described in Section 4 of the GFDL. > > As modifiability is a fundamental requirement of the Debian Free > Software Guidelines, this restriction is not acceptable for us, and > we cannot accept in our distribution works that include such > unmodifiable content. > > 2. At the same time, we also consider that works licensed under the > GNU Free Documentation License that include no invariant sections > do fully meet the requirements of the Debian Free Software > Guidelines. > > This means that works that don't include any Invariant Sections, > Cover Texts, Acknowledgements, and Dedications (or that do, but > permission to remove them is explicitly granted), are suitable for > the main component of our distribution. > > 3. Despite the above, GFDL'd documentation is still not free of > trouble, even for works with no invariant sections: as an example, > it is incompatible with the major free software licenses, which > means that GFDL'd text can't be incorporated into free programs. > > For this reason, we encourage documentation authors to license > their works (or dual-license, together with the GFDL) under the > same terms as the software they refer to, or any of the traditional > free software licenses like the the GPL or the BSD license. pgpUVVkMHkV0c.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: GFDL GR: Amendment: invariant-less in main v2
I second the Amendment fully quoted below, as a replacement of the previous one Adeodato wrote. Le Jeu 9 Février 2006 06:26, Adeodato Simó a écrit : > ---8< >--- > > Debian and the GNU Free Documentation License > = > > This is the position of the Debian Project about the GNU Free > Documentation License as published by the Free Software Foundation: > > 1. We consider that the GNU Free Documentation License version 1.2 > conflicts with traditional requirements for free software, since > it allows for non-removable, non-modifiable parts to be present in > documents licensed under it. Such parts are commonly referred to as > "invariant sections", and are described in Section 4 of the GFDL. > > As modifiability is a fundamental requirement of the Debian Free > Software Guidelines, this restriction is not acceptable for us, > and we cannot accept in our distribution works that include such > unmodifiable content. > > 2. At the same time, we also consider that works licensed under the > GNU Free Documentation License that include no invariant > sections do fully meet the requirements of the Debian Free Software > Guidelines. > > This means that works that don't include any Invariant Sections, > Cover Texts, Acknowledgements, and Dedications (or that do, but > permission to remove them is explicitly granted), are suitable > for the main component of our distribution. > > 3. Despite the above, GFDL'd documentation is still not free of > trouble, even for works with no invariant sections: as an > example, it is incompatible with the major free software licenses, > which means that GFDL'd text can't be incorporated into free > programs. > > For this reason, we encourage documentation authors to license > their works (or dual-license, together with the GFDL) under the > same terms as the software they refer to, or any of the > traditional free software licenses like the the GPL or the BSD > license. > > --->8 >--- -- ·O· Pierre Habouzit ··O[EMAIL PROTECTED] OOOhttp://www.madism.org pgpf04EsCgxdl.pgp Description: PGP signature
GFDL GR: Amendment: invariant-less in main v2
Hello,
After my amendment to the GFDL GR was accepted, there was a bit of
discussion about the majority requirement that should be put on it. In
a nutshell, this is what happened:
- in what may have been a bad decision but seemed appropriate at the
time, I wrote the amendment from a "Position Statement" point of
view, and concentrated on what we'd be doing, and overlooked being
particularly clear on the internals of such actions.
- the Secretary's best judgment was that the wording implied a
modification of the Social Contract ("an exception is being made
for some non-free works"), and thus in fulfillment of his duties
put a 3:1 majority requirement on the amendment.
- several people expressed the view that they interpreted the wording
differently, as in "it states that some GFDL-licensed works meet
the DFSG, and thus are suitable for main", for which a 1:1
majority would be enough.
- the Secretary expressed his willingness to adjust the majority
requirement if the wording of the amendment was corrected to
remove the ambiguity; this is where we are now.
So here's a revised version of the original amendment, which Manoj has
ACK'ed, and for which I expect to receive soon the necessary ACKs from
my original seconders (CC'ed) so that it can replace the previous one.
Apart from clarifying the wording of paragraph 2, I've dropped the
"Problems of the GFDL" section, which results in a much more brief and
straightforward statement. All the relevant information about the
invariant sections problem is in the first paragraph anyway, and I
don't see much point in carrying details about the other two issues,
when they don't affect us at all. (This has been discussed elsewhere,
but if somebody does still have concerns over the DRM clause, or the
Transparent Copies one, I guess we can go over them again.)
Thanks.
---8<---
Debian and the GNU Free Documentation License
=
This is the position of the Debian Project about the GNU Free Documentation
License as published by the Free Software Foundation:
1. We consider that the GNU Free Documentation License version 1.2
conflicts with traditional requirements for free software, since it
allows for non-removable, non-modifiable parts to be present in
documents licensed under it. Such parts are commonly referred to as
"invariant sections", and are described in Section 4 of the GFDL.
As modifiability is a fundamental requirement of the Debian Free
Software Guidelines, this restriction is not acceptable for us, and
we cannot accept in our distribution works that include such
unmodifiable content.
2. At the same time, we also consider that works licensed under the
GNU Free Documentation License that include no invariant sections
do fully meet the requirements of the Debian Free Software
Guidelines.
This means that works that don't include any Invariant Sections,
Cover Texts, Acknowledgements, and Dedications (or that do, but
permission to remove them is explicitly granted), are suitable for
the main component of our distribution.
3. Despite the above, GFDL'd documentation is still not free of
trouble, even for works with no invariant sections: as an example,
it is incompatible with the major free software licenses, which
means that GFDL'd text can't be incorporated into free programs.
For this reason, we encourage documentation authors to license
their works (or dual-license, together with the GFDL) under the
same terms as the software they refer to, or any of the traditional
free software licenses like the the GPL or the BSD license.
--->8---
--
Adeodato Simó dato at net.com.org.es
Debian Developer adeodato at debian.org
Ara que ets la meva dona, te la fotré fins a la melsa, bacona!
-- Borja Álvaro a Miranda Boronat en «Chulas y famosas»
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
