have a license that explicitly forbids
modification. These files are entirely non-functional.)
Thanks,
Dylan Thurston
- Forwarded message from [EMAIL PROTECTED] -
Subject: Bug#207932: Bug #207932 - emacs21: Includes non-free documents
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Fr
On 2003-11-26, Alex Schroeder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hm, maybe that is up to the courts to decide. It doesn't look like a
> copyleft to me, but that's just my first impression. I'm used to this
> definition from the FSF site:
>
> Copyleft is a general method for making a program free so
On 2003-10-25, Brian M. Carlson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 25, 2003 at 10:20:26PM +0200, Roland Stigge wrote:
>> Maybe I should add that some files in latex2html are GPL'ed, which
>> possibly forces us / the maintainer to apply the GPL to the whole
>> package.
>
> If some files are GP
On 2003-10-23, Måns Rullgård <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Dylan Thurston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> I believe courts have drawn a legal distinction between products or
>> code that has a reasonable legal purpose and code that has no such
>> legal purpo
On 2003-10-23, Brian Ristuccia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> (The fact that end users might use the software for something illegal is
> irrelevant to whether or not it can be included in Debian. One can use
> mixmaster for industrial espionage, john to brute-force UNIX password files
> for the purpo
On 2003-10-23, MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Please add your clarifications to your licence text. Assertions here
> may not be taken into consideration. I'm not sure what current opinion
> is about legal validity of unsigned emails to a public list.
Hmm? debian-legal has frequently accept
On 2003-10-13, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 03:55:36PM +0000, Dylan Thurston wrote:
>
>> Alternatively, you could provide the publisher with a written offer to
>> provide the source, which they could then print in the back of the
&g
On 2003-10-13, Brian T. Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The GNU GPL is somewhat awkward for print distribution: it requires
> either a CD of source in the back or an onerous offer valid for three
> years. The best alternative I can consider is to distribute the book
> under the GPL, with the
On 2003-10-10, Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Scripsit "Jaldhar H. Vyas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>> Nobody commented then and it looked ok to me however
>> James rejected it with the following comment:
>
>> > I'm a little concerned about the license on this software, in
>> > particular,
On 2003-10-09, Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Several parts of the GFDL (e.g., 4b, 4i) seem to prohibit anonymous
> modifications to a document. Quoting 4b:
>
> List on the Title Page, as authors, one or more persons or entities
> responsible for authorship of the modi
On 2003-10-08, Fedor Zuev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In this case, it is very unlikely that TYPEBANK Co. will win
> a lawsuit in any country. After all, similarity is not implies
> derivative work. But it is very likely that they will threaten,
> harass and terrorize everyyone who will eve
On 2003-10-08, Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think the only interesting question is whether a phone call from a
> non-legal Microsoft employee is enough for Debian to count the patent
> as enforced.
Alternatively, does anyone think there's a chance Microsoft would be
willing to stat
On 2003-10-02, Barak Pearlmutter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> - the enormous number of snippets. I would be surprised if fewer
>than 10% of our source tarballs contain snippets. Maybe a lot more.
In the interests of furthering the discussion, can I suggest limiting
the discussion further, b
On 2003-09-30, Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --3MwIy2ne0vdjdPXF
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> Content-Disposition: inline
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>
> On Tue, Sep 30, 2003 at 08:37:46AM -0600, Barak Pearlmutter wrote:
>> Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL
On 2003-09-29, Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sunday, Sep 28, 2003, at 14:30 US/Eastern, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
>> A good candidate would also be familiar with debian-legal's analysis
>> of the GFDL. Any of N Nerode, D Armstrong, or A DeRobertis would
>
> I am neither a develo
invariant sections. At least, I would
have some executive summary at the beginning.
Peace,
Dylan Thurston
On 2003-09-29, Fedor Zuev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, 27 Sep 2003, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
>
>> Fedor Zuev wrote:
>>> First, try to answer to several simply questions.
>> FYI, these are *my* answers, not necessarily everyone's answers.
>
>>> 0) Is printed Emacs Manual in bookstore a softwa
On 2003-09-29, Richard Braakman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 29, 2003 at 10:01:19AM -0400, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
>> * If the answer to the above is no, should we distribute them anyway,
>> simply because we don't have them in a free form?
>
> Hi. I think my first reply to this mail d
On 2003-09-29, Richard Braakman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 29, 2003 at 10:01:19AM -0400, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
>> Burden of proof arguments are, at best, very trick to make -- I
>> suggest you not rely on it. Certainly I don't buy it in this case.
>> Unless you can actually point to
On 2003-09-29, Mathieu Roy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Dylan Thurston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a tapoté :
>> On 2003-09-29, Mathieu Roy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> OK, here's one: what if the Japanese government wants to make a
>> >> complet
On 2003-09-29, Mathieu Roy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> OK, here's one: what if the Japanese government wants to make a
>> completely localised version of emacs? They would be unable to,
>> because they would not be able to translate the GNU Manifesto, which
>> does not yet have an official trans
nt to do would be to add an editorial note mentioning that this is
no longer true.
I can imagine many of your other examples of snippets becoming
outdated in similar ways.
Peace,
Dylan Thurston
On 2003-09-28, Barak Pearlmutter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > - No other free software organization eschews such snippets.
>>
>> I disagree with the premises of those two, as well. For instance: no
>> other free software organization edits out the non-free fonts from
>> XFree86 or the non-free
tion). I'm sure there are some examples of packages currently
in Debian with a README originally written in Japanese where we do
just that. Note that a translation is a derived work and would be
illegal if the README were under the standard "all rights reserved"
copyright.
Peace,
Dylan Thurston
On 2003-09-28, Barak Pearlmutter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If we decide to go on a crusade against them, it would be a really big
> deal for a couple reasons:
>
> - Debian is absolutely *rife* with such snippets.
> - This is because upstream tarballs are absolutely rife with them.
> - Scannin
On 2003-09-27, Rob Browning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In any case, presuming debian-legal becomes satisfied that I don't
> need to do anything about these files, I'll either mark this bug
> wonfix, or more likely, close it.
Of course. When I filed the bug, I was under the impression that
debia
On 2003-09-27, Peter S Galbraith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Zedor Fuev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> I will both consent and interests of users and unoriginal. You
>> can believe that personally You do not use any more abstract important
>> cases, this list software is not be counted copy
On 2003-09-27, Barak Pearlmutter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Based on long-standing Debian tradition and practice, this [removing
> non-modifiable texts] is decidedly and demonstrably not the case!
> Don and others were perhaps writing in haste.
It is long-standing tradition; however, whether it
On 2003-09-26, Bruce Perens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The conflict is around the need professed by FSF to hitch political speech
> to the cart of software documentation, and the fact that Debian, while it
> may have been designed in part to achive a social or political goal, was
> designed to de
On 2003-09-26, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Back to the DSP binaries: I remember that at one point there were DSP
> binaries included in the Linux kernel source. Is that still the case?
AFAIK, this is one good reason that Debian does not distribute
pristine kernel sources: the
On 2003-09-17, Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The question is: will requiring those markings make the license
> non-free?
I think it's more likely to be considered free if you require
functionality rather than specific wording. Compare this clause from
the GPL:
c) If the modifi
On 2003-09-18, Thomas Bushnell, BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Eben Moglen has told RMS that it's ok for us to do the Unicode trick:
> to alter it into some other form, and then that new form is entirely
> unrestricted by the license. And then, if we like, convert back to
> the original form t
On 2003-09-16, Joe Wreschnig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> To the readers of this message: if you are a Debian developer and you
>> >> do, or perhaps might, support including manuals covered by the GFDL
rly not the place
to discuss changing the DFSG, or deciding which bits on the CDs the
DFSG should apply to.
Peace,
Dylan Thurston
On 2003-09-11, Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If we were to elect a person to serve in this role, I suggest we permit
> people to self-nominate for a period, and then the Developers can elect
> one using the procedure described in the Debian Constitution. ...
Depending on the inten
On 2003-09-11, Jeremy Hankins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> On Mon, 8 Sep 2003 23:38:16 -0700 (PDT), Bruce Perens
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
>>> I am hoping that I can deal with both organizations _as_
>>> organizations.
>>
>> I think this very pr
t or pseudo-invariant sections,
like History and Cover Text?
And Branden Robinson mentioned unease with the clauses on mass
copying. Have they been considered carefully yet?
Peace,
Dylan Thurston
On 2003-09-10, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>> I should add that I want a license that guarantees that all receipients of
>> modified versions get the full original rights. (Similar to the GPL rather
>> than BSD in that respect.)
>
> Then us
On 2003-09-10, Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm guessing that you feel all of my questions to RMS have been
> rhetorical. They haven't been. For instance, I asked him whether
> Debian ceasing to distribute non-free software (and not providing
> reference to it in the installer, a
emID=56
http://[EMAIL PROTECTED]/happening.html
So the question of whether software licenses that claim to be leases
are actually valid remains a question for the court. OTOH, a license
like the GPL does not claim to be a lease in any way; I don't see how
it could be interpreted that way.
Peace,
Dylan Thurston
On 2003-09-09, Thomas Uwe Gruettmueller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi RMS,
>
> On Montag 08 September 2003 18:09, Richard Stallman wrote:
>> While nominally Debian GNU/Linux does not include the non-free
>> software, the non-free software is distributed from the same
>> server. We cannot recommen
On 2003-09-08, Thomas Bushnell, BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Have you asked the glibc team (the actual upstream) what they think?
> Or the FSF? I would start that way.
I sent a short note to the FSF on Sunday (as a private individual,
interested in Debian) setting out the situation and asking
On 2003-09-06, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Scott James Remnant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> Not true, the UK has a set of rules as to what constitutes sufficient
>> authority to be bound by the contents of a document. The Electronic
>> Communications Act 2000 extended these to inc
On 2003-09-05, Bruce Perens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Regarding FSF's definition of free software, it would have been nice if
> you'd published one before we created the DFSG. We wouldn't have had to
> write it. At the time we did, you sent me the statement "This is a good
> definition of Free S
know to ask for it and go out of their way to do so. And
the situation may well continue to get better, with the possibility of
new GRs to banish non-free further.
Peace,
Dylan Thurston
re are no guarantees anywhere. Svaha!
#
This cavalier attitude seems rather dangerous. Is this file at all
used anymore? Is there any action necessary?
Peace,
Dylan Thurston
eparate guidelines.
If you do end up coming to the conclusion that the GFDL (with
invariant sections) would not meet your standards for free
documentation, you should make sure to include an example of some
license that would be judged differently under your proposed free
documentation guidelines and the DFSG. (Do you have such an example
in mind already?)
Peace,
Dylan Thurston
e Software and thus eligible for inclusion in the Debian OS.
>
> [ ] None of the above statements approximates my opinion.
>
> Part 2. Status of Respondent
>
> Please mark with an "X" the following item only if it is true.
>
> [ ] I am a Debian Developer as described in the Debian
> Constitution as of the date on this survey.
--Dylan Thurston
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
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> OK. How about a GR saying "We will not accept anything non-free in
> main, except for the preamble of the GPL. ..."
>...
> I bet a lot of people would be satisfied by the following more general
> statement as a GR. This seems to correspo
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Jakob Bohm wrote:
> Here is my classification, which handles this better:
>
> A piece of information, whether in analog, digital or other
> form, is a program if it is intended to directly control the
> actions of a computer, other than by simply holding a pure
> de
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Dylan Thurston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> To be precise, the reference you cited (thanks!) makes it clear that
>> RMS considers the "free" in "free software" to apply only to the
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, MJ Ray wrote:
> Dylan Thurston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, MJ Ray wrote:
>>> ... Both FSF and Debian agree that FDL-covered works are not free
>>> software, ...
>> To the best
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, MJ Ray wrote:
> ... Both FSF and Debian agree that FDL-covered works are not free
> software, ...
To the best of my knowledge, this is not correct: RMS seems to argue
that a manual published under the FDL is free in the free software
sense, since you can make any f
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, J.D. Hood wrote:
>> I believe that RMS would say that a program with an unremovable,
>> unmodifiable, 10,000 word "Ode to my goldfish" and no other
>> restrictions would be free software, although inconvenient. I haven't
>> seen anyone from Debian defend that positi
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Mathieu Roy wrote:
>> ... Based on this, I believe that RMS would say that a program with
>> an unremovable, unmodifiable, 10,000 word "Ode to my goldfish" and
>> no other restrictions would be free software, although
>> inconvenient. I haven't seen anyone from Debi
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> In fact, I have been considering one point the GNU project has pointed
> out by creating the FDL: the fact that software on the one hand and
> 'normal' writings on the other hand are two completely different things.
> I believe that many Debi
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Adam Warner wrote:
> Branden, perhaps the term "information disclosure" would better suit
> you/us than "privacy"? That is we propose a DFSG-free licence cannot
> mandate information disclosure of anything but the information forming a
> distributed and derived work.
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Gregory K.Johnson wrote:
> ... But B needn't disclose this offer; B could intentionally make
> itself ineligible to transfer A's offer by conducting its own
> distribution commercially; ...
I'm not sure what you're getting at, but under the terms of the GPL, B
is no
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Thomas Hood wrote:
>> 1) The freedom to use the Work for any purpose.
>> 2) The freedom adapt the Work to one's needs. Access to the form of the
> ^to
>>work which is preferred for making modifications (for software, the
>>"source code"), if
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Branden Robinson wrote:
> 5) The freedom to retain privacy in one's person, effects, and data,
>including, but not limited to, all Works in one's possession and one's
>own changes to Works written by others.
>
> ... The point is that my usage of your Free Sof
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Nicolas Kratz wrote:
> OK, I'm dropping this. I don't see any way to get upstream to release
> the software under a free license, as the copyright holder is indeed not
> the author, but the university.
You shouldn't necessarily give up, if the upstream author (the
p
thing.) So we had to search for ways to make sure that our message
> saying non-free software is wrong would at least be present in the GNU
> packages that they redistribute. ...
I disagree with his position (I believe that Freedom is vitally
important for many things, including software and political essays),
but I see his point of view.
Peace,
Dylan Thurston
t FSF's freedom 3 is more focussed on improving the
program, i.e., functionality, while DFSG 3 is stated more broadly.)
Peace,
Dylan Thurston
Peter S Galbraith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Jaime E . Villate <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Wed, May 21, 2003 at 02:33:19AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
>> > On Tue, May 20, 2003 at 09:21:13PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
>> > > I would point out that the FSF has rewritten its views a
On Fri, 23 May 2003 12:01:12 -0400, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
> Frankly, this whole episode saddens me tremendously. I have the
> utmost respect for you and the work you've done, but I simply can't
> agree with you on this issue. It has always been very comforting to
> know that you were out there,
MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > No you don't care: you don't use Emacs.
>
> I use Emacs, but if part of Emacs has become not free software, Debian
> must not hesitate to act to fix it. It's a shame and massively annoying,
> but it's consistent with what Debian says in the social contract. Wo
On Mon, 12 May 2003 14:50:28 -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Mon, May 12, 2003 at 07:45:51PM +0200, Arnoud Galactus Engelfriet wrote:
> > The motivation for making them unrevokable is to prevent
> > authors from being forced to accept unconditional surrender
> > of their works. Then they could be
On Sat, Apr 26, 2003 at 08:08:01PM +0200, J?r?me Marant wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> According to Dylan Thurston (see #154043), some files shipped
> with GNU Emacs could be considered as non-free.
>
> One of them is /usr/share/emacs/21.3/etc/LINUX-GNU.
>
> The problem seem to
Martin Schr??der wrote:
> On 2002-09-06 18:59:45 -0400, Dylan Thurston wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 06, 2002 at 03:35:17PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > > The names could only be restricted if they are trademarked, which they
> > > are not. "Computer Modern&quo
On Fri, Sep 06, 2002 at 03:35:17PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > > However, use of the names is restricted:
> >
> > This is a slightly odd statement, since (AFAIK) names cannot be
> > restricted in the ways that follow. The crucial issue seems to be
> > whether this statement (and what f
about "public domain" has to be taken
seriously, since otherwise there is no permission to distribute. Does
Debian need legal advice on whether this statement actually places the
files in the public domain? Or does it make more sense to approach
Knuth directly? If we do approach
seems that he gives conditions as preferences, rather than legal
requirements.)
[Background: we currently ship these manuals in tetex-doc, without
source.]
Best,
Dylan Thurston
- Forwarded message from [EMAIL PROTECTED] -
Delivery-date: Sun, 14 Apr 2002 18:04:05 -0400
Subjec
e there other issues
we want to address other than binary modification? I note that the
Makefile doesn't seem to have a license; do I need to ask about that?
From the current package, that seems to be the one file that we actually
modify.
Best,
Dylan Thurston
pgpPAOPJopKHC.pgp
Description: PGP signature
ly -- note that the MathML people plan a LaTeX to MathML
> translator, but dvi/ps/pdf lack the necessary document structuring concepts].
> Possession of the source thus provides many additional options for future
> document migrations (none of us really expect dvi, ps, pdf, etc., to be th
) the source no longer seems to be available. I don't
know what conditions the source code was originally released under.
What do people think?
Does anyone know anyone who uses this driver/knows where to get the
source?
Best,
Dylan Thurston
- Forwarded message from Dylan Thurston &l
licit licenses.
Bug #131191. I'm sure there are many more such problems throughout
Debian.
Best,
Dylan Thurston
pgpixEJidaLyl.pgp
Description: PGP signature
/freeamp/themes/{FreeAmp,Relatable}.fat". I couldn't
find a copyright statement for this file; what is its provenance?
Please do not distribute the package in its current state with Woody.
Best,
Dylan Thurston
-- System Information
Debian Release: 3.0
Architecture: i386
Kernel
On Tue, Jul 24, 2001 at 11:17:27PM -0600, John Galt wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Jul 2001, Dylan Thurston wrote:
>
> >I recently came across some data published as a .LZW archive which I
> >want to process. It seems that the standard program for dealing with
> >the archives, lha,
t still current?
Thanks,
Dylan Thurston
80 matches
Mail list logo
