Re: Results for Debian's Position on the GFDL

Anthony DeRobertis wrote: > The Project essentially told us our conclusion — the GFDL is not free — > is wrong in the case where there are no invariant sections. The Project > did not tell us why. There are several ways we can take this: > >1. The Project intends this to be a one-time thing, a

Re: Results for Debian's Position on the GFDL

MJ Ray wrote: >Please provide references. From my recollection and Manoj Srivastava's >draft PS, it was far from the consensus in the general case for the latter. > > Upon further thought, I'm not sure if we reached a consensus on that; it was certainly a while ago. I hereby retract the statemen

Re: Antique RC bugs (many about licensing)

Nathanael Nerode wrote: > Package: xserver-xorg (optional; Debian X Strike Force et al.) > [xorg-x11/6.9.0.dfsg.1-4 ; =] [add/edit comment] > 211765 [ ] xfree86: material under GLX Public License and SGI Free > Software License B is not DFSG-free > > As far as I can tell, the philosoph

Re: Results for Debian's Position on the GFDL

Francesco Poli wrote: >On Sun, 12 Mar 2006 17:23:32 -0500 Anthony DeRobertis wrote: > >[...] > > >>However, maybe once we come up with a way to reconcile the Project's >>decision with the text of the DFSG and GFDL, we should ask the project >>to approve it (assumably via GR). >> >> > >I'm no

Re: Results for Debian's Position on the GFDL

MJ Ray wrote: > Personally, I find it disappointing that so many people ranked > opposite views high, then FD below them. I think the "no, > no matter what" description of FD in the ballot is unhelpful > and deters compromise attempts. I also tend to think that the presence of the absurd "free in

Re: Results for Debian's Position on the GFDL

Francesco Poli wrote: >I'm definitely not happy: on the contrary, I'm really depressed... >:-((( > > Well, I must say I'm not depressed about it --- that'd be if Amendment B passed. Or even got majority. I can understand how the average developer can yell "nitpicking!" at a lot of our objectio

Re: better licence for fosdem, debconf, .., videos...

Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [...] > It speaks about "false attribution": I cannot imagine how stating "This > image is based on the desk image created by Bob" could be considered as > false attribution... I repeat: I think it depends where and how "based on the desk image created by Bob" is

Re: Bug#323099: no longer a bug.

On Sun, 2006-03-12 at 20:13 +, MJ Ray wrote: > Mike O'Connor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Finally, the GPL is not invariant: IIRC, you can edit it if you delete > the preamble [see http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#ModifyGPL ]. > Debian contains the version we received, though. On debian sy

Re: better licence for fosdem, debconf, .., videos...

On Sun, 12 Mar 2006 11:47:56 + MJ Ray wrote: > Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > On Fri, 10 Mar 2006 01:16:13 + MJ Ray wrote: [...] > > > For a Derivative Work, I'm pretty sure that the law about false > > > attribution allows the original author to demand they not be > > > credited w

Re: Results for Debian's Position on the GFDL

Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Joe Buck wrote: > > >That is, the necessity to make a written offer good for three years > >is sometimes painful, as is the necessity to keep a transparent copy > >available for one year. I did not understand why debian-legal found > >the latter provision

Antique RC bugs (many about licensing)

I went through the RC bugs which apply to etch and are older than one year. This is a rather disturbing list, as you would expect from the age of the bugs. In most cases I don't think you can expect the maintainers to deal with these bugs on their own. What are the release managers planning to do

Re: Results for Debian's Position on the GFDL

On Sun, 12 Mar 2006 17:15:40 -0500 Anthony DeRobertis wrote: > Joey Hess wrote: > > > Attempts to legislate pi are always questionable, and when you ask a > > majority of uninformed voters[3] to choose between items, it's > > natural for the compromise to win, and not unheard of for it to end > >

Re: Results for Debian's Position on the GFDL

On Sun, 12 Mar 2006 17:23:32 -0500 Anthony DeRobertis wrote: [...] > However, maybe once we come up with a way to reconcile the Project's > decision with the text of the DFSG and GFDL, we should ask the project > to approve it (assumably via GR). I'm not sure I understand what you mean... Could y

Re: Results for Debian's Position on the GFDL

On 2006-03-12, Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I still don't see how Debian can comply with keeping the source to > every version for a year In kde-related packages (and probably also in gnome-related) have the help files distributed in some docbook format - and the help thingie is a do

Re: Results for Debian's Position on the GFDL

On Sun, 12 Mar 2006 01:11:45 -0700 Joe Buck wrote: > That is, the necessity to make a written offer good for three years > is sometimes painful, There's no such necessity in the GNU GPL v2. GPLv2, section 3 offers three alternative paths, only one of which requires that you make a written offer,

Re: Results for Debian's Position on the GFDL

Joe Buck wrote: >That is, the necessity to make a written offer good for three years >is sometimes painful, as is the necessity to keep a transparent copy >available for one year. I did not understand why debian-legal found >the latter provision a DFSG violation. > We found both of them to be DFS

Re: Results for Debian's Position on the GFDL

Glenn Maynard wrote: >On Sat, Mar 11, 2006 at 11:01:19PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote: > > >>I propose that the >>Project is telling us that something along the following is the true >>reading: >> >>"You may not use technical measures to obstruct or control the >>reading or further co

Re: Results for Debian's Position on the GFDL

MJ Ray wrote: >More than unfortunate, it makes that ambition impossible without >telepathy or further surveying, as far as I can see. There seems >little point just guessing what motives produced a pi=3 statement. > It isn't quite as bad as pi = 3, as there is certainly some abiguity in both the D

Re: Results for Debian's Position on the GFDL

Walter Landry wrote: >You're right. I did not notice that. That makes the analysis much >simpler. The developers, in their wisdom, essentially changed DFSG >#10 to add the GFDL without invariant sections. > Unfortunately, DFSG 10 reads: * **Example Licenses* The "*GPL

Re: Results for Debian's Position on the GFDL

Joey Hess wrote: > Attempts to legislate pi are always questionable, and when you ask a > majority of uninformed voters[3] to choose between items, it's natural > for the compromise to win, and not unheard of for it to end up "3". I agree wholeheartedly, but I'm not exactly sure how else to proce

Re: Results for Debian's Position on the GFDL

Henning Makholm wrote: >>"You may not use technical measures to obstruct or control the >>reading or further copying [by the intended recipient] of [all] the >>copies you make or distribute [to him]" >> >> > >But how can we explain away "make or"? > I'm pretty sure I carefuly did s

Re: Bug#323099: no longer a bug.

Mike O'Connor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > The only things the documentation license holds as invariant are the GPL > and the GFDL themselves, and Debian already accepts those as being > invariant, this documentation should no longer be considered non-free in > light of GR-2006-01. But becuase of this, I

Re: (OT) Re: Results for Debian's Position on the GFDL

On Mon, Mar 13, 2006 at 12:24:12AM +0900, JC Helary <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >[ ] Choice 3: pi = 3 [needs legislature of Indiana approval] > > > >Attempts to legislate pi are always questionable, and when you ask a > >majority of uninformed voters[3] to choose between items, it's natural > >f

Re: no longer a bug.

"Mike O'Connor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > from the documentation in question: > > "Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document > under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or > any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with th

Re: Results for Debian's Position on the GFDL

Kalle Kivimaa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Or that the GR changed the DFSG, and the proponents managed to > > browbeat the secretary into not requiring a 3:1 majority. > > Well, fortunately 1) the winning option did have a 3:1 majority You're right.

Re: Results for Debian's Position on the GFDL

Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > [...] I feel that we now need to figure out why the project as > a whole has rejected the draft position statement [2] and render our > future --- and possibly re-render our past --- interpretations of the > DFSG in accordance. It is unfortunate that no thor

no longer a bug.

from the documentation in question: "Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with the Invariant Sections being ``GNU General Public Licen

Re: Results for Debian's Position on the GFDL

Joe Buck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > For the "DRM" restriction, I think that "that is not the intended reading > of the license" applies. The FSF clearly did not intend to keep people > from using chmod on a GFDL document, and did not intend other problems > pointed out. [...] What do you base that cle

Re: Results for Debian's Position on the GFDL

Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Or that the GR changed the DFSG, and the proponents managed to > browbeat the secretary into not requiring a 3:1 majority. Well, fortunately 1) the winning option did have a 3:1 majority and 2) the option requiring a 3:1 majority did not reach even a sim

Re: Free documents using non-free fonts - can they be in main?

Frank Küster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> On 05 Mar 2006 12:03:00 +0100 Claus Färber wrote: >> >>> Frank Küster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb/wrote: >>> > The reason for this is that building (La)TeX documentation >>> > >>> > * depends on the right

Re: Results for Debian's Position on the GFDL

Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sat, Mar 11, 2006 at 11:01:19PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote: > > However, Option 1 was the consensus of this list, and thus we've been > > overridden[0]. I feel that we now need to figure out why the project as > > a whole has rejected the draft pos

Re: Results for Debian's Position on the GFDL

Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I believe there are essentially two reconciliations we can have for each > problem listed in the position statement [2]: Either "that does not make > things non-free" or "that is not the intended reading of the license, > stop nit-picking so much." O

(OT) Re: Results for Debian's Position on the GFDL

[ ] Choice 3: pi = 3 [needs legislature of Indiana approval] Attempts to legislate pi are always questionable, and when you ask a majority of uninformed voters[3] to choose between items, it's natural for the compromise to win, and not unheard of for it to end up "3". Funny thing is that pi=3

Re: Results for Debian's Position on the GFDL

Anthony DeRobertis wrote: > However, Option 1 was the consensus of this list, and thus we've been > overridden[0]. I feel that we now need to figure out why the project as > a whole has rejected the draft position statement [2] -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Re: Results for Debian's Position on the GFDL

Scripsit Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > "You may not use technical measures to obstruct or control the reading > or further copying of the copies you make or distribute" has been > mis-read. I don't think there is any way the Project would consider "you > must make all your files a+r, et

Re: Results for Debian's Position on the GFDL

Scripsit "Andrew Donnellan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Option 2 says GFDL works without invariant sections are free. Does > this include GFDL manuals where the *only* invariant section is the > GFDL itself? I am be inclined to think that such works would be free following the GR; the restrictions for

Re: better licence for fosdem, debconf, .., videos...

Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > On Fri, 10 Mar 2006 01:16:13 + MJ Ray wrote: > > "Removing credit when requested to do so" is not an issue > > outlined in Evan Prodromou's summary. The problem was having > > to remove *all* references to the author (thereby creating > > a possible terminat

Re: Free documents using non-free fonts - can they be in main?

Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 05 Mar 2006 12:03:00 +0100 Claus Färber wrote: > >> Frank Küster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb/wrote: >> > The reason for this is that building (La)TeX documentation >> > >> > * depends on the right number and order of commands to be >> > executed

Re: Results for Debian's Position on the GFDL

On Sun, 12 Mar 2006, Florian Weimer wrote: > * Don Armstrong: > > In any case, we've been working with the FSF to resolve these > > issues as well, so hopefully a new version of the GFDL will no > > longer posess them. > > Does this mean that there will be a new version of the GFDL, > finally, or

Re: Results for Debian's Position on the GFDL

* Don Armstrong: > In any case, we've been working with the FSF to resolve these issues > as well, so hopefully a new version of the GFDL will no longer posess > them. Does this mean that there will be a new version of the GFDL, finally, or just a different FSF-endorsed documentation license (whi

Re: Results for Debian's Position on the GFDL

On Sat, Mar 11, 2006 at 11:01:19PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote: > However, Option 1 was the consensus of this list, and thus we've been > overridden[0]. I feel that we now need to figure out why the project as > a whole has rejected the draft position statement [2] and render our The GFDL has

Re: Results for Debian's Position on the GFDL

Anthony DeRobertis writes: > I believe there are essentially two reconciliations we can have for each > problem listed in the position statement [2]: Either "that does not make > things non-free" or "that is not the intended reading of the license, > stop nit-picking so much." For the "DRM" restri