Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If we want to make a distinction, we want to make it for our own sake,
> not for legal reasons.
Indeed, but that would need consensus that a distinction is essential
(all evidence so far suggests it isn't) or desirable (consensus unlikely,
IMO) and at le
Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> For the record, I'm also happy with the version that is in Barak's faq
> presently (which starts with "You should take this answer as a total
> disclaimer of everything. ...")
It's fine with me, too.
Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> In my opinion we actually try our damnedest to make sure, to the best
> of our knowledge, that people *can* rely of having the DFSG freedoms
> when they use software from Debian.
But this is not true. Almost never, the source code itself is
examined,
MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Three problems with that hypothesis:-
>
> 1. We don't have any way of distinguishing software and this documentation
> in a safe manner. My local research suggests that software is generally
> treated as a literary work and electronic documentation definitely
Scripsit Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> I'd be more comfortable with an ending that called a spade a space,
> perhaps something like
For the record, I'm also happy with the version that is in Barak's faq
presently (which starts with "You should take this answer as a total
disclaimer of eve
Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In my opinion we actually try our damnedest to make sure, to the best
> of our knowledge, that people *can* rely of having the DFSG freedoms
> when they use software from Debian. [...]
Calling it a political statement is probably wrong, yes, but it's a
Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> discussion whether software documentation in Debian has to meet the
> DFSG, or some different standards specific to documentation.
Three problems with that hypothesis:-
1. We don't have any way of distinguishing software and this documentation
in a safe
Scripsit Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> I'd like suggest a further question and anser:
> X. If some software is free according to Debian's standards, do I
> still face legal risks when I use, modify or distribute it?
I can see the point, but I think the answer you propose sounds too
m
> (IMHO, the GFDL is a very interesting starting point, and will almost
> certainly evolve to something genuinely useful. The problems that are
I'm not aware of any plans on the FSF's part to significantly evolve
the GFDL. That's not to say that no such plans exist, but we still
need to deal wit
Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> X. If some software is free according to Debian's standards, do I
> still face legal risks when I use, modify or distribute it?
I've said many times, many ways, that talking about "free" on its own
may not be clear enough. Perhaps rephrase "If some
Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Then why do we discuss at all?
Because consensus of this list is normally taken as direction for Debian
action?
--
MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know.
Thought: Edwin A Abbott wrote about trouble with Windows in 1884
Richard Braakman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 13, 2003 at 03:59:00PM -, MJ Ray wrote:
>> You disagree that the documentation part of a GFDL-covered work is
>> acceptably licensed?
> Yes. It is encumbered with invariant sections. That clearly doesn't
> meet DFSG#3, and it doesn't q
Okay, I rephrased the GFDL stuff a bit. Let me know if you're not
comfortable with it.
--Barak.
Barak Pearlmutter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Okay, I rephrased the GFDL stuff a bit. Let me know if you're not
> comfortable with it.
"Debian in general does not consider material under the GFDL with any
significant clauses "activated" to be free."
"Almost no one would seriously contend that
Barak Pearlmutter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > free license, Debian in general does not consider material under the
>> > GFDL to be free.
>
>> I think it's premature to include such a statement in an official
>
> Good point.
>
> Can you suggest a re-phrase for the GFDL question?
>
> I think it
> > free license, Debian in general does not consider material under the
> > GFDL to be free.
> I think it's premature to include such a statement in an official
Good point.
Can you suggest a re-phrase for the GFDL question?
I think it is fair to say that Debian strongly discourages its use, ie
Barak Pearlmutter wrote:
> With a little help, I've composed a draft DFSG FAQ. It meant as an
> introduction to issues discussed on debian-legal, with some general
> background material to help bring naive readers up from ground zero.
>
> http://people.debian.org/~bap/dfsg-faq.html
I read:
On Tue, 15 Jul 2003, Florian Weimer wrote:
> "Joe Moore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Unless the FSF is the sole copyright holder of the relevant GFDL document,
> > their interpretation of the license is irrelevant.
> Then why do we discuss at all?
The court system is the interpretation that ma
Barak Pearlmutter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> If people think it could be of some official use, I'd be pleased if it
> were taken over into a more formal location.
| Unless the material is dual-licensed under the GFDL and an accepted
| free license, Debian in general does not consider material
"Joe Moore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Unless the FSF is the sole copyright holder of the relevant GFDL document,
> their interpretation of the license is irrelevant.
Yours is as well, and so is everyone's on this list.
Then why do we discuss at all?
Thanks. I incorporated your mods, leaving out the public domain
change because I'm not sure how to phrase "except in France and places
like that where we take that to mean effectively the same thing even
though their legal system doesn't have such a concept except for
people like Leonardo da Vinci
>In the answer to question 9 it might be worth noting the question of
>whether or not things can actually be released into the public
>domain. My understanding is that debian-legal generally quietly
>re-interprets such claims as an extremely permissive license.
In the United States I believe this
Scripsit Jeremy Hankins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> In the answer to question 9 it might be worth noting the question of
> whether or not things can actually be released into the public
> domain. My understanding is that debian-legal generally quietly
> re-interprets such claims as an extremely permiss
Barak Pearlmutter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> With a little help, I've composed a draft DFSG FAQ. It meant as an
> introduction to issues discussed on debian-legal, with some general
> background material to help bring naive readers up from ground zero.
>
> http://people.debian.org/~bap/dfsg-f
On Tue, Jul 15, 2003 at 07:02:18AM -0600, Hans Fugal wrote:
> > It would be clear, if this were the GNU Free Manpage License. The FSF
> > makes a claim I know I've heard here before: that there is no
> > one-to-one mapping from files to works. They'd presumably
> > consider all the manpages in t
On Sun, Jul 13, 2003 at 03:59:00PM -, MJ Ray wrote:
> You disagree that the documentation part of a GFDL-covered work is
> acceptably licensed?
Yes. It is encumbered with invariant sections. That clearly doesn't
meet DFSG#3, and it doesn't qualify for the exception in DFSG#4.
> I do not tal
With a little help, I've composed a draft DFSG FAQ. It meant as an
introduction to issues discussed on debian-legal, with some general
background material to help bring naive readers up from ground zero.
http://people.debian.org/~bap/dfsg-faq.html
It is a bit rough, so I'd welcome modifications
On Mon, Jul 14, 2003 at 11:42:09PM +0200, Matt Kraai wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 14, 2003 at 09:15:01PM +, Brian M. Carlson wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 07, 2003 at 09:59:34PM -0700, Matt Kraai wrote:
> > > The thread
> > >
> > >
> > > http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/debian-legal-200207/msg0002
* Brian T. Sniffen [Tue, 15 Jul 2003 at 08:34 -0400]
> > # H. Include an unaltered copy of this License.
> >
> > That looks pretty clear to me.
>
> It would be clear, if this were the GNU Free Manpage License. The FSF
> makes a claim I know I've heard here before: that there is no
> one-to-o
Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > You can make a manpage, but you must
>> > have to include inside the manpage
>>
>> Actually, it's sufficient to refer to this information in the SEE ALSO
>>
Florian Weimer said:
> Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> You can make a manpage, but you must
>> have to include inside the manpage
> Actually, it's sufficient to refer to this information in the SEE ALSO
> section of the manpage, so that elaborateness of the GFDL doesn't
> interfere wit
Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > You can make a manpage, but you must
> > have to include inside the manpage
>
> Actually, it's sufficient to refer to this information in the SEE ALSO
> section of the manpage, so that elaborateness of the
Andrew Stribblehill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> The sole maintainer collaborated with another author in writing the
> program, and they have joint copyright. He would like to get it
> relicenced under a standard licence but the other author has now
> died. Is there any way to get it changed?
I would g
Andrew Stribblehill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The sole maintainer collaborated with another author in writing the
> program, and they have joint copyright. He would like to get it
> relicenced under a standard licence but the other author has now
> died. Is there any way to get it changed?
The
Andrew Stribblehill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> FYI, the current licence is below:
>
> 9menu is free software, and is Copyright (c) 1994 by David Hogan and
> Arnold Robbins. Permission is granted to all sentient beings to use
> this software, to make copies of it, and to distribute those c
[Please Cc: me on this thread; I'm not on the list]
Hi. I've recently taken over the 9menu package. Looking over the
copyright file, it wasn't clear whether it passed DFSG 4. The
upstream maintainer has confirmed that in his reading of the
copyright, patched binaries may be distributed.
The sole
Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> You can make a manpage, but you must
> have to include inside the manpage
Actually, it's sufficient to refer to this information in the SEE ALSO
section of the manpage, so that elaborateness of the GFDL doesn't
interfere with the intendend use of the ma
On Mon, Jul 14, 2003 at 09:15:01PM +, Brian M. Carlson wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 07, 2003 at 09:59:34PM -0700, Matt Kraai wrote:
> > The thread
> >
> > http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/debian-legal-200207/msg00029.html
> >
> > documents the exact rationale for these sections. The follow
38 matches
Mail list logo
