Re: Proposed plan (and license) for the webpage relicensing
On Friday 21 April 2006 01:13, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña wrote: > On Fri, Apr 21, 2006 at 01:01:40AM +0200, Frans Pop wrote: > > Do you think it would be worth doing the licence change process for > > the website and the Release Notes at the same time? I would guess > > there's probably quite a bit of overlap for authors and translators > > between the two. > > IMHO, all the technical documentation (including the Release Notes) > should be just licensed by the GPL (preferably, although some authors > might prefer a BSD license for them). Oh, I agree. However, changing it from no licence specified to whatever licence requires going through the same procedure as is needed for the website. I was just wondering if it might be more efficient to combine the two. I.e. make an inventory for both of past authors, match the two lists and send one mail asking people to ack the change for the one, the other or both. pgpCKDuyiqYHd.pgp Description: PGP signature
Organizzazione tributo a Lucio Battisti
Alla cortese attenzione del responsabile all'organizzazione di eventi Con la presente siamo ad informaLa sulla possibilità di organizzare nel suo Locale uno spettacolo-tributo a Lucio Battisti. Per il terzo anno consecutivo sui palchi di tutta Italia, Leandro Ghetti, bravissimo cantante dalla straordinaria somiglianza con Battisti, ed il gruppo musicale "Innocenti Evasioni" offrono un emozionante concerto di oltre 2 ore che ripercorre la carriera dell'indimenticato cantautore attraverso le sue più belle canzoni, intervallandole da brevi, divertenti ed interessanti aneddoti e curiosità. Il costo complessivo della serata, comprensivo di concerto del gruppo musicale e materiale pubblicitario (manifesti in quadricromia 70x100) è di 800 - 1200 euro (il prezzo varia in base alla distanza ed alle caratteristiche della piazza/locale). Per maggiori informazioni, può visitare il nostro sito http://www.lucio-battisti.com o telefonare al 347.2576475. Nell'attesa di una Sua cordiale risposta, Le porgo distinti saluti Niccolò Chimenti - "Innocenti Evasioni - Lucio Battisti Tribute Band" www.lucio-battisti.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] tel: 347.2576475 -- The message was sent by Mass e-Mailer --- Download from http://www.mass-emailer.com -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Proposed plan (and license) for the webpage relicensing
On Fri, Apr 21, 2006 at 01:01:40AM +0200, Frans Pop wrote: > > Do you think it would be worth doing the licence change process for the > website and the Release Notes at the same time? I would guess there's > probably quite a bit of overlap for authors and translators between the > two. IMHO, all the technical documentation (including the Release Notes) should be just licensed by the GPL (preferably, although some authors might prefer a BSD license for them). The GPL license is used by: the FAQ, the Securing Debian Manual, the "Introduction to i18n", the Administrator's Guide, the User's Guide (including Progeny's), the "Euro HOWTO", Developer's Reference, the Project History, the Debian Reference, the Apt HOWTO, and the New Maintainer's Guide (maybe some other minor documents in the DDP CVS area too). The Release Notes is probably one of the few (big) documents in the DDP CVS that does not actually use the GPL license. Regards Javier signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Proposed plan (and license) for the webpage relicensing
Hi Javier,
On Wednesday 19 April 2006 13:12, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña wrote:
> I was reviewing the status of #238245 ("Debian web site is licensed
> under the OPL which is not considered DFSG-free") and see that there
> have been no actions since October last year and no discussion at
> debian-www.
There's a similar BR open for the Release Notes, which is currently
without a licence (#332782).
Do you think it would be worth doing the licence change process for the
website and the Release Notes at the same time? I would guess there's
probably quite a bit of overlap for authors and translators between the
two.
pgpkzlkUH5NwH.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Bug#238245: Proposed plan (and license) for the webpage relicensing
On Wed, 19 Apr 2006, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña wrote: > In summary: The web pages license content should be changed from the > OPL (non DFSG-free) to some other license (DFSG-free). As it is, the > current content is not GPL compatible (so it cannot be reused, for > example, in documentation produced by the DDP project). > > This issue was brought up last in October 2005 to the SPI board and they said > (based on the IRC log [2] there doesn't seem to be any minutes) that > debian-www should tell them what to do. I don't find any other references to > this in the SPI Board archives. > > So, Here's the plan I propose: > > a) a proper license should be decided for the website. > >I suggest using a BSD-style license. The attached license is such a >license. It is based on the FreeBSD documentation license [3] and >explicitely mentions translations. In our case (the website) the >'source code' is the wml, but I leave references to other sources (SGML, >XML) that might apply to other documentation that the website might hold. Should we decide to change the license, we should either use the MIT license if we don't want it to be copyleft, or the GPL if we do. A custom license is not something that we want to write, and especially not without serious thought and consideration between people who have a great deal of experience in writing licenses. Contributing to license proliferation by a license which is not compatible with the GPL and some other free software licenses is not something that we want to do. Don Armstrong -- "There's nothing remarkable about it. All one has to do is hit the right keys at the right time and the instrument plays itself." -- Bach http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu
Re: Proposed plan (and license) for the webpage relicensing
On Fri, 21 Apr 2006 07:52:47 +1000 Andrew Donnellan wrote: > On 4/21/06, Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > How about saying "either first or last lines"? > > > > What if both first and last lines are reserved for other uses? > > What about "first or last usable lines in the source language"? It would be an improvement, but would get so vague that dropping it entirely would make much more sense... At least that's my opinion: "first or last usable lines in the source language" is almost equivalent to "wherever you like within the file", because the term "usable" is not that clearly defined... -- :-( This Universe is buggy! Where's the Creator's BTS? ;-) .. Francesco Poli GnuPG Key ID = DD6DFCF4 Key fingerprint = C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4 pgpIfVkyUMuB6.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Proposed plan (and license) for the webpage relicensing
On Thu, 20 Apr 2006 01:37:43 +0200 Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña wrote: > On Thu, Apr 20, 2006 at 12:56:57AM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote: > > > > > >I suggest using a BSD-style license. The attached license is > > >such a license. It is based on the FreeBSD documentation > > >license [3] and explicitely mentions translations. In our case > > >(the website) the 'source code' is the wml, but I leave > > >references to other sources (SGML, XML) that might apply to > > >other documentation that the website might hold. > > > > I do *not* think that the license you are proposing is a good one. > (...) > > Maybe we should just use a simpler (i.e. technology neutral license) > without explicitly mentioning that the source = WML. Indeed. The 2-clause BSD license I suggested matches your description! ;-) Another good choice in the non-copyleft arena is the Expat (a.k.a. MIT) license: http://www.jclark.com/xml/copying.txt > > > Clause 1 restricts where the license text must be retained: as the > > first lines. What if I convert pages from WML to another format > > where the first lines are reserved for some other use? It seems I > > cannot legally do so! > > How about saying "either first or last lines"? What if both first and last lines are reserved for other uses? > > > The license does not seem to be GPLv2-compatible, as clause 3 is a > > weak copyleft constraint: it seems that I cannot combine a page > > under this > > I've removed that one. > > > If you are going to propose a BSD-style license, I would strongly > > recommend the (unmodified) 2-clause BSD license: > > http://www.gnu.org/licenses/info/BSD_2Clause.html > > The attached license is quite similar to the BSD license with the only > differences being that there is no 'binary' form, there's just a > compiled form of the site (and explicitly lists some formats which the > source might be compiled too). This explicit listing of formats is one of the main problems with the license you're proposing: it ties things up to specific technical details that are really going to become obsolete soon. Good licenses try hard to avoid that. [...] > In the website is not (c) SPI then > our current footer really doesn't make any sense. Indeed. > > > > e) from here on access to the CVS of the website should be given > > > after > > >clearly stating (and getting and agreement) that any and all > > >contributions to the CVS, unless specified otherwise with clear > > >(c) statements in the code, will be (c) SPI and will be > > >considered "work under contract" > > > > I don't think you can claim it's work under contract, unless there > > actually *is* a contract involved! > > Voluntary contributions are not "work under contract", AFAICT. > > The idea of that portion, which might be misunderstood as the wording > is not really accurate, is that if volunteers argue they "worked" for > SPI for the website development there is no need to have paperwork > done for the (c) transfer. If we drop the (c) transfer portion (I'm > open to that, if people don't want it to be there) then this should be > dropped too. > > AFAIK (in Spanish legislation at least) volunteer work can be > considered work "for contract" (note the quotes) in the sense that you > work for a company (a volunteer organisation) for free and you waive > the rights to your work to it (including IP rights, and copyrights). > Since there is no real written "contract" this does not conflict with > the fact that the company you work for (the one you have a contract > with) might have stated that you cannot work for others while working > for them. I don't know if this argument could actually work in Spain. I really doubt it can work in *any* jurisdiction where at least one contributor lives... > > As I said, however, those steps could be dropped, but then we have to > ask every contributor to have their contributions licensed under this > license (and cross our fingers that we will not have to change it in > the future). We should also probably have to change the (c) portion to > list people that have contributed in the site or, at the very least, > say that SPI is not the (c) holder. Listing contributors would be nice. It must be done at least in comments, as long as contributors retain their copyright, so why not doing it in a visible way? N.B.: no need to Cc: me, as long as debian-legal is in the loop... -- :-( This Universe is buggy! Where's the Creator's BTS? ;-) .. Francesco Poli GnuPG Key ID = DD6DFCF4 Key fingerprint = C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4 pgpyFssedCK4M.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Link for 3.1r2 jigdo file?
* Scott Mosier ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060420 19:45]: > Thank you for the quick response. Status update: The CDs are more or less there - I don't know what's the really latest status, but expect the links during the next 24 hours. Cheers, Andi -- http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Link for 3.1r2 jigdo file?
Thank you for the quick response.On 4/20/06, Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: * Scott Mosier ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060420 13:05]:> It may not be up yet, but I was looking for the jigdo file for the r2 update> to sarge? If it is not up yet, any word on when that might happen? AFAIK, as soon as Steve is not sick anymore.Cheers,Andi-- http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/ -- Scott B. Mosier[EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.mrmosier.tkRegistered Linux User #393365"Ideas are bulletproof." - V
Re: Link for 3.1r2 jigdo file?
* Scott Mosier ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060420 13:05]: > It may not be up yet, but I was looking for the jigdo file for the r2 update > to sarge? If it is not up yet, any word on when that might happen? AFAIK, as soon as Steve is not sick anymore. Cheers, Andi -- http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Link for 3.1r2 jigdo file?
It may not be up yet, but I was looking for the jigdo file for the r2 update to sarge? If it is not up yet, any word on when that might happen?-- Scott B. Mosier [EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.mrmosier.tkRegistered Linux User #393365"Ideas are bulletproof." - V
