Re: Freaky copyright laws [was: SUN RPC code is DFSG-free]

On Sun, Aug 24, 2003 at 10:39:02PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > There have been efforts in the U.S. to undo the effects of _Feist_ > through legislation. One example is the "Collections of Information > Antipiracy Act"[1]. (I don't think that bill passed.) Lobbyists apparently tried to get i

Re: Freaky copyright laws [was: SUN RPC code is DFSG-free]

On Sun, Aug 24, 2003 at 10:29:40PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote: > On Sun, Aug 24, 2003 at 04:12:08PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > > I freely admit that this analysis is grounded on U.S.-centric notions of > > reverse engineering and "originality" as a relevant concept to > > copyright. In oth

Re: A possible GFDL compromise

On Sun, Aug 24, 2003 at 08:32:08PM -0400, David B Harris wrote: > On Sun, 24 Aug 2003 16:54:53 -0500 > Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > If "make or" were stricken, and perhaps some clarification added to > > ensure that secure transport channels between distributor and > > distribute

Re: SURVEY: Is the GNU FDL a DFSG-free license?

In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Branden Robinson wrote: > Part 1. DFSG-freeness of the GNU Free Documentation License 1.2 > > Please mark with an "X" the item that most closely approximates your > opinion. Mark only one. > > [ X ] The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as publis

Re: Documentation and Sarge's Release Critical Policy

In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Adam Warner wrote: > So what's your timeline for migration? Move Emacs into non-free today? > The .orig.tar.gz files contain what we consider non-DFSG-free files, and > .orig.tar.gz files in main and contrib are supposed to meet the DFSG. > With a migration plan, Ema

Re: SURVEY: Is the GNU FDL a DFSG-free license?

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 === CUT HERE === Part 1. DFSG-freeness of the GNU Free Documentation License 1.2 Please mark with an "X" the item that most closely approximates your opinion. Mark only one. [ X ] The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as publishe

Re: Is the GNU FDL a DFSG-free license?

> Brian T. Sniffen, on 2003-08-22, 13:54, you wrote: > [...] > > Whew, I though this was a list for serious discussion, but some participants > obviously have to reach a certain age first... *plonk* > > Joerg I, for one, didn't find his argument juvenile at all. I agree with him; you answered the

Re: A possible GFDL compromise

On Sun, 2003-08-24 at 19:46, Jacobo Tarrio wrote: > O Domingo, 24 de Agosto de 2003 ás 19:36:20 -0500, Joe Wreschnig escribía: > > > How about the GPL v2? "The source code for a work means the preferred > > form of the work for making modifications to it"; binary or object code > > is anything tha

Re: A possible GFDL compromise

O Domingo, 24 de Agosto de 2003 ás 19:36:20 -0500, Joe Wreschnig escribía: > How about the GPL v2? "The source code for a work means the preferred > form of the work for making modifications to it"; binary or object code > is anything that is not source. I don't see the problem in applying this >

Re: A possible GFDL compromise

On Sun, 2003-08-24 at 18:21, Jacobo Tarrio wrote: > O Domingo, 24 de Agosto de 2003 ás 16:54:53 -0500, Branden Robinson escribía: > > > drawn to the condition "You may not use technical measures to obstruct > > or control the reading or further copying of the copies you make or > > distribute." >

Re: A possible GFDL compromise

On Sun, 24 Aug 2003 16:54:53 -0500 Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > If "make or" were stricken, and perhaps some clarification added to > ensure that secure transport channels between distributor and > distributee were not a problem, this particular problem might go away. I disagree,

Re: A possible GFDL compromise

O Domingo, 24 de Agosto de 2003 ás 16:54:53 -0500, Branden Robinson escribía: > drawn to the condition "You may not use technical measures to obstruct > or control the reading or further copying of the copies you make or > distribute." > If "make or" were stricken, and perhaps some clarification a

Re: [STATUS] SURVEY: Is the GNU FDL a DFSG-free license?

On Sunday, Aug 24, 2003, at 04:56 US/Eastern, Eduard Bloch wrote: - pure FDL (which is obviously free) You can only believe that ("obviously free") if you have not read the list archives. Please review them, and also explain the 35 people who disagree ("no") compared to at most 18 who agre

Re: SURVEY: Is the GNU FDL a DFSG-free license?

On Thursday, Aug 21, 2003, at 01:09 US/Eastern, Branden Robinson wrote: [why to the mailing list...?] === CUT HERE === Part 1. DFSG-freeness of the GNU Free Documentation License 1.2 Please mark with an "X" the item that most closely approximates your opinion. Mark only one. [ X ]

Re: Worries about GPLv3 (was Re: Documentation and Sarge's Release Critical Policy)

On Sun, 2003-08-24 at 17:27, Anthony DeRobertis wrote: > On Sunday, Aug 24, 2003, at 10:10 US/Eastern, Jérôme Marant wrote: > > > > One thing we are sure about, is that, according to RMS, FSF is aware > > of the GPL compatibility problem and is going to work this out, as soon > > as it gets enough

Re: A possible GFDL compromise

Richard Stallman wrote: >The goal of invariant sections, ever since the 80s when we first made >the GNU Manifesto an invariant section in the Emacs Manual, was to >make sure they could not be removed. Specifically, to make sure that >distributors of Emacs that also distribute non-free software cou

Re: A possible GFDL compromise

On Mon, Aug 25, 2003 at 04:44:07AM +0900, Fedor Zuev wrote: > On Sun, 24 Aug 2003, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > >At a cost. While I understand the desire for the invariant > >sections, it can be wondered what freedom is most desirable: the > >freedom to run, study, redistribute and improve for everyon

Worries about GPLv3 (was Re: Documentation and Sarge's Release Critical Policy)

On Sunday, Aug 24, 2003, at 10:10 US/Eastern, Jérôme Marant wrote: One thing we are sure about, is that, according to RMS, FSF is aware of the GPL compatibility problem and is going to work this out, as soon as it gets enough manpower. Considering how much they seem to want to keep, e.g., inva

Re: Documentation and Sarge's Release Critical Policy

Joe Wreschnig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb/wrote: > The only "manpower" required should be a clause that allows converting > the document to be under the GPL, much like the clause used in the LGPL. > This would result in the most possible restrictions while still being > GPL compatible. That would

Re: A possible GFDL compromise

On Sat, Aug 23, 2003 at 08:09:53PM -0400, Richard Stallman wrote: > Nowadays we have to struggle constantly against the tendency to bury > the free software movement and pretend that we advocate "open source". "Let those who fight monsters take care lest they themselves become monsters." - Friedri

Re: A possible GFDL compromise

On Sun, Aug 24, 2003 at 12:23:40AM -0500, John Goerzen wrote: > On Fri, Aug 22, 2003 at 04:30:11PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > > Please catch up on the archives of this list for the past year or so. > > Which is unfortunately not, to me, a very helpful suggestion, as I do not > have the days

Re: A possible GFDL compromise

On Sunday, Aug 24, 2003, at 15:44 US/Eastern, Fedor Zuev wrote: I cannot see any connection between disagreement with anyone opinion, and the right to censor somebody else's opinion, so angrily demanded by you. Hmmm, who here wants to put to use this new-found right (how the f--- is

Re: A possible GFDL compromise

On Sunday, Aug 24, 2003, at 01:24 US/Eastern, John Goerzen wrote: This make no sence. It is the same as not to have invariant sections at all. That is the point. What makes no sense about it? It makes no sense that the FSF would agree to it. Why else would there put invariant sections in

Re: A possible GFDL compromise

On Sun, Aug 24, 2003 at 12:21:05AM -0500, John Goerzen wrote: > On Fri, Aug 22, 2003 at 11:54:15PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote: > > It fails the dissident test. The dissidents would not be able to > > exchange copies of the covered work in encrypted emails (which they > > might have every reason t

Re: A possible GFDL compromise

On Fri, Aug 22, 2003 at 10:25:16PM -0400, Brian T. Sniffen wrote: > No. There's a consortium of companies, led by Phillips, which hold > the trademarks on CDDA, CD-ROM, CD-R, "Compact Disc", and a pool of > patents applicable to making compact discs and the devices to > manipulate them. I can't j

Re: A possible GFDL compromise

On Fri, Aug 22, 2003 at 05:21:33PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote: > Other than that, you have successfully managed to approximate the > position from which we *started* the GFDL debate, presumably without > actually bothering to research it. In case anyone reading this doubts Andrew's words, I invi

Re: A possible GFDL compromise

Le dim 24/08/2003 à 14:57, Sergey V. Spiridonov a écrit : > BTW, I understand, FDL with invariant section infringements freedoms of > the distributor, as Debian. Distributor is the last instance where the > software package can be modified before it will be delivered to user. > Distributor have

Re: A possible GFDL compromise

On Fri, Aug 22, 2003 at 08:55:17AM -0700, Mark Rafn wrote: > Aside from one secondhand comment on this list, ...which was itself hearsay... > I've seen no indication that the FSF is amenable to any discussion of > possible changes. -- G. Branden Robinson| To stay young requ

Re: [STATUS] SURVEY: Is the GNU FDL a DFSG-free license?

On Sun, Aug 24, 2003 at 07:42:11PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote: > Le dim 24/08/2003 à 10:56, Eduard Bloch a écrit : > > I propose to make a simple change in the DSFG (or document the license > > evalutiang method in the policy, whatever): differentiate between > > > > - pure FDL (which is obvi

Freaky copyright laws [was: SUN RPC code is DFSG-free]

On Sun, Aug 24, 2003 at 04:12:08PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > I freely admit that this analysis is grounded on U.S.-centric notions of > reverse engineering and "originality" as a relevant concept to > copyright. In other jurisdictions, copyrights more closely resemble > patents, and indepen

Re: SUN RPC code is DFSG-free

On Mon, Aug 25, 2003 at 02:45:14AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > By contrast, modifying the program to look exactly like another one, say > the source code to Windows solitaire, is already prohibited by copyright Not always. -- G. Branden Robinson|It was a typical net.exercis

Re: SUN RPC code is DFSG-free

On Sun, Aug 24, 2003 at 06:15:57PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote: > On Sun, Aug 24, 2003 at 06:41:31PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > > On Sun, Aug 24, 2003 at 12:58:32PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote: > > > On Sun, Aug 24, 2003 at 04:13:31PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > > > > > An abbreviated form

Re: SUN RPC code is DFSG-free

On Sat, Aug 23, 2003 at 06:50:19PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > > I'm personally concerned about this particular phrase, as it seems to > > preclude Debian from distributing software with Sun RPC in it unless > > Debian itself is developing the product or program using Sun RPC. > > Which we are,

Re: SUN RPC code is DFSG-free

On Sun, Aug 24, 2003 at 04:13:31PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > Consider, as another example, the following program: > > #!/bin/sh > # Capital-AJ version 1.0 > # Copyright (c) 2003 Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > # All rights reserved > > find /foo -type f | gre

Re: Is the Sun RPC License DFSG-free?

On Fri, Aug 22, 2003 at 02:05:57PM -0400, Brian T. Sniffen wrote: > Sun has repeatedly clarified elsewhere that the intent of this is > essentially "MIT/X11, except you may not distribute this product > alone." Got any citations? The license certainly doesn't *read* like "MIT/X11, except you may

Re: [DISCUSSION] SURVEY: Is the GNU FDL a DFSG-free license?

On Sun, Aug 24, 2003 at 06:22:13PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > On Sun, Aug 24, 2003 at 03:25:48PM +0300, Richard Braakman wrote: > > On Sun, Aug 24, 2003 at 12:39:04AM -0500, John Goerzen wrote: > > > > Yet we do routinely apply the DFSG to interpreted scripts where there > > > > is *no* differ

Re: Bug#181493: Is the Sun RPC License DFSG-free?

On Fri, Aug 22, 2003 at 11:39:51AM -0700, Jeff Bailey wrote: > We also have essentially the same license with ttf-bitstream-vera. IMO, that isn't Free Software, either. -- G. Branden Robinson| One doesn't have a sense of humor. Debian GNU/Linux | It has

Re: A possible GFDL compromise

On Sun, 2003-08-24 at 14:44, Fedor Zuev wrote: > On Sun, 24 Aug 2003, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > > >At a cost. While I understand the desire for the invariant > >sections, it can be wondered what freedom is most desirable: the > >freedom to run, study, redistribute and improve for everyone, or > >th

Re: A possible GFDL compromise

Le dim 24/08/2003 à 21:44, Fedor Zuev a écrit : > >If people disagree with what you say, you should not prohibit them > >from doing so. You're still a well-known person who can reasonably > >assume that what you write or say will not go unnoticed. Even if > >it's removed from one distribution of a

Re: A possible GFDL compromise

On Sun, 24 Aug 2003, Wouter Verhelst wrote: >At a cost. While I understand the desire for the invariant >sections, it can be wondered what freedom is most desirable: the >freedom to run, study, redistribute and improve for everyone, or >the freedom to run, study, redistribute and improve for only

Re: Is the GNU FDL a DFSG-free license?

On Sun, 2003-08-24 at 13:37, Fedor Zuev wrote: > On Sat, 23 Aug 2003, Matthew Garrett wrote: > >This still fails - as a result of the use of invariant sections, I > >am unable to use content from one piece of documentation in another > >piece of documentation under the same license under certain >

Re: A possible GFDL compromise

[Disclaimer: the use of "we" in this mail refers to the majority consensus as I perceive it; there are always dissenters in Debian on any issue] On Sat, Aug 23, 2003 at 08:09:53PM -0400, Richard Stallman wrote: > The goal of invariant sections, ever since the 80s when we first made > the GNU Manif

Re: A possible GFDL compromise

On Sat, 2003-08-23 at 19:09, Richard Stallman wrote: > The goal of invariant sections, ever since the 80s when we first made > the GNU Manifesto an invariant section in the Emacs Manual, was to > make sure they could not be removed. Specifically, to make sure that > distributors of Emacs that also

Re: Is the GNU FDL a DFSG-free license?

On Sat, 23 Aug 2003, Matthew Garrett wrote: >> But here you talked not about discrimination against using >>the copies of manual, but about discrimination against creating >>specific types of derivative works. This may be reasonable, but >>please note, that in _this_ sense, many of debian/ma

Re: A possible GFDL compromise

On Sat, Aug 23, 2003 at 08:09:53PM -0400, Richard Stallman wrote: > The goal of invariant sections, ever since the 80s when we first made > the GNU Manifesto an invariant section in the Emacs Manual, was to > make sure they could not be removed. Specifically, to make sure that > distributors of Em

Re: SUN RPC code is DFSG-free

On Mon, Aug 25, 2003 at 02:45:14AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > > You can "distribute the end product under the GPL". You cannot remove > > fsf-funding and distribute the result. > > But that means you can't distribute the end product under the terms of > the GPL, which include (in part 2) the ab

Re: A possible GFDL compromise

The goal of invariant sections, ever since the 80s when we first made the GNU Manifesto an invariant section in the Emacs Manual, was to make sure they could not be removed. Specifically, to make sure that distributors of Emacs that also distribute non-free software could not remove the statements

Re: [STATUS] SURVEY: Is the GNU FDL a DFSG-free license?

Le dim 24/08/2003 à 10:56, Eduard Bloch a écrit : > I propose to make a simple change in the DSFG (or document the license > evalutiang method in the policy, whatever): differentiate between > > - pure FDL (which is obviously free) > - tainted FDL (with invariant sections) It looks about 2 out

Re: SUN RPC code is DFSG-free

On Sun, Aug 24, 2003 at 06:41:31PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > On Sun, Aug 24, 2003 at 12:58:32PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote: > > On Sun, Aug 24, 2003 at 04:13:31PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > > > > An abbreviated form of the so-called "viral" part of the GPL says that > > > > everything yo

Re: Documentation and Sarge's Release Critical Policy

On Sun, 2003-08-24 at 09:10, Jérôme Marant wrote: > One thing we are sure about, is that, according to RMS, FSF is aware > of the GPL compatibility problem and is going to work this out, as soon > as it gets enough manpower. The only "manpower" required should be a clause that allows converting th

Re: [DISCUSSION] SURVEY: Is the GNU FDL a DFSG-free license?

On Sun, Aug 24, 2003 at 06:22:13PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > On Sun, Aug 24, 2003 at 03:25:48PM +0300, Richard Braakman wrote: > > On Sun, Aug 24, 2003 at 12:39:04AM -0500, John Goerzen wrote: > > > > Yet we do routinely apply the DFSG to interpreted scripts where there > > > > is *no* differ

Re: SURVEY: Is the GNU FDL a DFSG-free license?

On Sun, 2003-08-24 at 09:30, Branden Robinson wrote: > On Fri, Aug 22, 2003 at 04:59:32PM +0200, Sebastien Bacher wrote: > > -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- > > Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux) > > Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.5.8 > > > > iD8DBQE/Ri+5Qxo87a

Re: SUN RPC code is DFSG-free

On Sun, Aug 24, 2003 at 12:58:32PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote: > > > From this I can conclude that I need to be able to distribute any > > > given component of the glibc source code under the GPL. > > Which isn't correct. > > You need to be able to distribute the end product under the terms of >

Re: SUN RPC code is DFSG-free

On Sun, Aug 24, 2003 at 12:58:32PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote: > On Sun, Aug 24, 2003 at 04:13:31PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > > > An abbreviated form of the so-called "viral" part of the GPL says that > > > everything you include in a GPLed work must be distributable under the > > > GPL. > >

Re: [DISCUSSION] SURVEY: Is the GNU FDL a DFSG-free license?

On Sun, Aug 24, 2003 at 03:25:48PM +0300, Richard Braakman wrote: > On Sun, Aug 24, 2003 at 12:39:04AM -0500, John Goerzen wrote: > > > Yet we do routinely apply the DFSG to interpreted scripts where there > > > is *no* differentiation between source code and compiled form. > > > > Not really; it'

Re: Documentation and Sarge's Release Critical Policy

Quoting Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Anthony Towns wrote: > >In short, some members of the FSF have asked for us to give them some > >more time to come up with a GFDL that's DFSG-free before we go all > >gung-ho about putting it in non-free and having bigger controversies. > >Martin

Re: A possible GFDL compromise

John Goerzen wrote: This make no sence. It is the same as not to have invariant sections at all. That is the point. What makes no sense about it? It is the same as allowing to modify invariant section. One can remove existing invariant secion and insert his own. BTW, I understand, FDL w

Re: [DISCUSSION] SURVEY: Is the GNU FDL a DFSG-free license?

On Sun, Aug 24, 2003 at 12:39:04AM -0500, John Goerzen wrote: > > Yet we do routinely apply the DFSG to interpreted scripts where there > > is *no* differentiation between source code and compiled form. > > Not really; it's just that the compiled form is often transient. How is this different fro

Re: SUN RPC code is DFSG-free

On Sun, Aug 24, 2003 at 04:13:31PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > > An abbreviated form of the so-called "viral" part of the GPL says that > > everything you include in a GPLed work must be distributable under the > > GPL. > > This isn't quite accurate: it says that it must be distributable under

Re: [DISCUSSION] SURVEY: Is the GNU FDL a DFSG-free license?

On Sun, Aug 24, 2003 at 02:15:48AM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote: > >3. Tool depencies. > > Is a document free if it requires non-free software to read? > Provided that is a *technical* requirement and not a *legal* > requirement, it's free, but must go in 'contrib'. Just like free > programs

Re: [STATUS] SURVEY: Is the GNU FDL a DFSG-free license?

Joe Wreschnig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I realized after I sent this that it doesn't convey what I actually > meant. Maintainers must not put non-free software in main. The only > guaranteed way to meet this requirement is to review the source code > they package. The guidelines only require

Re: SURVEY: Is the GNU FDL a DFSG-free license?

On Thu, Aug 21, 2003 at 12:09:54AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > > Part 1. DFSG-freeness of the GNU Free Documentation License 1.2 > > Please mark with an "X" the item that most closely approximates your > opinion. Mark only one. > > [ X ] The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1

Re: [STATUS] SURVEY: Is the GNU FDL a DFSG-free license?

On Sun, 2003-08-24 at 04:54, Joe Wreschnig wrote: > This is in policy (and the social contract) already. Maintainers must > review the source code they package. I realized after I sent this that it doesn't convey what I actually meant. Maintainers must not put non-free software in main. The only g

Re: [STATUS] SURVEY: Is the GNU FDL a DFSG-free license?

On Sun, 2003-08-24 at 03:56, Eduard Bloch wrote: > #include > * Branden Robinson [Sun, Aug 24 2003, 03:43:00AM]: > > > possible non- > > developers developers developers > > -

Re: [STATUS] SURVEY: Is the GNU FDL a DFSG-free license?

#include * Branden Robinson [Sun, Aug 24 2003, 03:43:00AM]: > possible non- > developers developers developers > - > option 1 ("no")

[STATUS] SURVEY: Is the GNU FDL a DFSG-free license?

I'm announcing a "closing of the polls" date for this survey. Of course, I can't stop people from replying after that date, and don't really see a reason to ask them not to. I will tabulate "final" results based on survey responses received by the debian-legal mailing list as of Thursday, 28 Augu

Re: SURVEY: Is the GNU FDL a DFSG-free license?

On Fri, Aug 22, 2003 at 04:59:32PM +0200, Sebastien Bacher wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- > Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux) > Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.5.8 > > iD8DBQE/Ri+5Qxo87aLX0pIRAnk2AJ9MAKis4/wKYxZu3IkM/266z5ghLwCggh/9 > vv/E4AchLIziqcb6P

Re: Is the GNU FDL a DFSG-free license?

Op zo 24-08-2003, om 08:36 schreef Nathanael Nerode: > However, if an author believes that modifications of his work may be > "prejudicial to his or her honor or reputation" without being illegal > for other reasons (libel, slander, fraud, misrepresentation, etc.), I > think that that work is un

Re: Is the GNU FDL a DFSG-free license?

Nathanael Nerode wrote: > Arnoud Galactus Engelfriet quoth: > >It's not very popular, but since the US became a party to the > >Berne Convention they have to recognize moral rights. And it's > >in 17 US Code 106A. > > > >http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#106a > > > >Arnoud > Note first

Re: Documentation and Sarge's Release Critical Policy

On Thu, Aug 21, 2003 at 12:33:31AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > My next post to -devel-announce will discuss some of these finer details. Is that still in the works? > In short, some members of the FSF have asked for us to give them some > more time to come up with a GFDL that's DFSG-free before

Re: Is the GNU FDL a DFSG-free license?

Arnoud Galactus Engelfriet quoth: It's not very popular, but since the US became a party to the Berne Convention they have to recognize moral rights. And it's in 17 US Code 106A. http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#106a Arnoud Note first that these only apply to a "work of visual ar

Re: [DISCUSSION] SURVEY: Is the GNU FDL a DFSG-free license?

John Goerzen wrote: There are some properties of documentation that make it a fundamentally different beast from the software we deal with. Some are: 1. Lack of a clear differentiation between source code and compiled form. Nope; this problem exists even with things generally agreed to be pr

Re: SUN RPC code is DFSG-free

On Sat, Aug 23, 2003 at 06:27:08PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote: > > > And > > > their intentions are: "MIT/X11, except you may not distribute this > > > product alone". > > I'm not particularly convinced it's not compatible with the GPL, either. > > If you're trying to distribute the product alone

Re: A possible GFDL compromise

John Goerzen wrote: One of the main sticking points with the GFDL is the use of invariant sections, which may not be removed or altered (save for some very inconsequential exceptions.) One thing about the invariant sections is that the GFDL specifically states that they "contain nothing that cou

Re: Is the GNU FDL a DFSG-free license?

Joerg wrote: The point is, I think that there are circumstances where having invariant sections are _necessary_. When I am writing a report with a conclusion that contains my very personal opinion, I as the author do not want anybody to change that section, write anything into it that I do not ag

Re: Documentation and Sarge's Release Critical Policy

Anthony Towns wrote: >In short, some members of the FSF have asked for us to give them some >more time to come up with a GFDL that's DFSG-free before we go all >gung-ho about putting it in non-free and having bigger controversies. >Martin (wearing his DPL hat) talked to me about this at debcamp. R

Re: [DISCUSSION] SURVEY: Is the GNU FDL a DFSG-free license?

On Fri, Aug 22, 2003 at 11:48:57PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote: > Scripsit John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > I would hold that position. But I caution people reading this to not assume > > that this means I believe documentation deserves lower standards. > > I think that if we find ways to fi

Re: A possible GFDL compromise

On Sat, Aug 23, 2003 at 10:16:57AM +0200, Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote: > John Goerzen wrote: > > >I suggest that even if the GFDL did not allow modification of the invariant > >sections, if it at least allowed removal of them, we would be in much > >better > > This make no sence. It is the same

Re: A possible GFDL compromise

On Fri, Aug 22, 2003 at 04:30:11PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > On Fri, Aug 22, 2003 at 10:14:31AM -0500, John Goerzen wrote: > This is far from the only objection that this list has come up with > with respect to the GNU FDL, though it was almost the only one we were > publicly discussing abou

Re: A possible GFDL compromise

On Fri, Aug 22, 2003 at 11:54:15PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote: > > That doesn't seem to me to be any more non-free than the GPL requiring > > people that distribute binaries also distribute soures. > > It fails the dissident test. The dissidents would not be able to > exchange copies of the cove