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

On Tue, Sep 30, 2003 at 05:41:09PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: > We've already had this survey. Can you perhaps say why you are taking > yet another, why you think the conclusions might be different, and > what you think the survey is intended to show? I believe he was responding to the or

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

On Tue, Sep 30, 2003 at 05:41:09PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: > We've already had this survey. Can you perhaps say why you are taking > yet another, why you think the conclusions might be different, and > what you think the survey is intended to show? Actually, his seems to be a late ent

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

We've already had this survey. Can you perhaps say why you are taking yet another, why you think the conclusions might be different, and what you think the survey is intended to show? Thomas

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

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. [ ] The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as published by the Free Software Foundation, is not a license comp

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

On Sat, Aug 30, 2003 at 04:39:05PM -0700, Matt Taggart wrote: > IMHO This is _not_ appropriate for debian-devel-announce. It's not a soapbox, > please keep your messages purely informational in the future. (If I haven't > critizied others for doing the same thing, sorry. Maybe it was because your

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

CC me on replies. Thanks. Branden Robinson writes... > A little over one week ago, I posted a survey[1] to the debian-legal > mailing list, requesting the opinion of subscribers regarding one of a > pair of related questions that have been asked with increasing frequency > on that list, and in a

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

On 2003-08-30 23:27:44 +0100 Richard Braakman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: ...and I said yes, but you should do it properly and define all the words, just to be on the safe side. Got anything new to say, or is the day stuck again? If someone proposes to go out for a walk because it's such a ni

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

On Thu, Aug 28, 2003 at 10:47:45PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote: > On 2003-08-28 21:51:41 +0100 Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >Op do 28-08-2003, om 20:02 schreef MJ Ray: > >>Ye gods! Who knew that "software" was such a contentious word? > >Agreed. Perhaps we should... > >... Oh, wait. I alre

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

Branden Robinson wrote: > === 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. > > [ ] The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as published >

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

On Fri, Aug 29, 2003 at 04:36:42PM +0200, Mathieu Roy wrote: > - This survey was made during aout, where more than usually people can > be on vacation -- yeah, I was :) Yes, I'm sure that if the survey was taken at a more appropriate time, the majority of people who understand that the GFDL is

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

On Mon, 25 Aug 2003, Josselin Mouette wrote: >> >Le lun 25/08/2003 ? 09:22, Fedor Zuev a ?crit : >> >> When you try to apply license outside of its scope you should expect >> >> to receive funny results. GFDL has a very narrow scope. It is bad. >> >> But it is different problem. >> >> >No, it is e

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

* Joe Wreschnig ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030828 19:50]: > On Thu, 2003-08-28 at 03:55, Andreas Barth wrote: > > So, as a ad-hoc statement it seems to me that the only way "in the > > spirit" of the Social Contract is to accept GFDL-docu if certain > > restrictions are not used (except for a license tex

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

Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a tapoté : > Le ven 29/08/2003 à 10:42, Fedor Zuev a écrit : > > Of course. You did not know? It is a completely your > > problem. > > You probably wanted to say something, but the following explains all: > > > You are not aware? > > Hey, I know you! You

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

A little over one week ago, I posted a survey[1] to the debian-legal mailing list, requesting the opinion of subscribers regarding one of a pair of related questions that have been asked with increasing frequency on that list, and in a few other forums around the Internet. Does the GNU Free Docume

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

Le ven 29/08/2003 à 16:36, Mathieu Roy a écrit : > - This survey was made during aout, where more than usually people can > be on vacation -- yeah, I was :) Yeah, so it deprived us of your stupid arguments. What a shame. > - It's represent only the point of view of people at debian-legal >

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

Scripsit Mathieu Roy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > - It's represent only the point of view of people at debian-legal > while the scope of the issue is way more general than that. The survey was announced in DWN before the polling booth closed. During the last year, DWN has ran several stories about th

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

Mathieu Roy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I conclude that there is a probability of less than 1 in 1000 that the > > > above total vote for option 1 would have been obtained by pure chance > > > if there was no majority for option 1 over all others. > > > > This is only meaningful if the samp

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

Le ven 29/08/2003 à 10:42, Fedor Zuev a écrit : > Of course. You did not know? It is a completely your > problem. You probably wanted to say something, but the following explains all: > You are not aware? Hey, I know you! You are Jean-Claude Van Damme, aren't you? Nobody can be as purely a

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

Op do 28-08-2003, om 20:02 schreef MJ Ray: > Ye gods! Who knew that "software" was such a contentious word? Agreed. Perhaps we should... ... Oh, wait. I already suggested we'd do so. -- Wouter Verhelst Debian GNU/Linux -- http://www.debian.org Nederlandstalige Linux-documentatie -- http://nl.l

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

Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > * Joe Wreschnig ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030828 19:50]: >> On Thu, 2003-08-28 at 03:55, Andreas Barth wrote: >> > So, as a ad-hoc statement it seems to me that the only way "in the >> > spirit" of the Social Contract is to accept GFDL-docu if certain >> > re

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

On Fri, 29 Aug 2003, Josselin Mouette wrote: >Le ven 29/08/2003 ? 10:42, Fedor Zuev a ?crit : >> Of course. You did not know? It is a completely your >> problem. >You probably wanted to say something, but the following explains >all: >> You are not aware? >Hey, I know you! You are Jean-Cla

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

On 2003-08-29 16:09:45 +0100 MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...] I can't see either happening. Should have read "either change". Sorry to point it out, but there are some picky people in this thread.

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

On 2003-08-29 05:40:37 +0100 Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Here are the results of the survey. > > possible non- > developers developers developers > -

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

> > I conclude that there is a probability of less than 1 in 1000 that the > > above total vote for option 1 would have been obtained by pure chance > > if there was no majority for option 1 over all others. > > This is only meaningful if the sample is unbiased. Since the survey > was announced

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

On 2003-08-29 15:36:42 +0100 Mathieu Roy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: There are several issues. - This survey was made during aout, where more than usually people can be on vacation -- yeah, I was :) I was on holiday for some of August too. I suspect that is uncorrelated with views on FDL. C

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

On 2003-08-29 14:57:26 +0100 Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: This is only meaningful if the sample is unbiased. Oh, that's a bit strong. It would still have some meaning, just not one that's useful ;-) The question is: is it an unbiased sample of those who would vote in a GR on thi

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

On Sun, Aug 24, 2003 at 07:17:46PM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote: > On Thursday, Aug 21, 2003, at 01:09 US/Eastern, Branden Robinson wrote: > > [why to the mailing list...?] So people can verify the results for themselves, and will be less likely to accuse me of falsifying the results. Or so I

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

MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 2003-08-29 05:40:37 +0100 Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > Here are the results of the survey. > > > > possible non- > > developers developers developers > > -

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

On 2003-08-28 21:51:41 +0100 Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Op do 28-08-2003, om 20:02 schreef MJ Ray: Ye gods! Who knew that "software" was such a contentious word? Agreed. Perhaps we should... ... Oh, wait. I already suggested we'd do so. ...and I said yes, but you should do it

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

On Thu, 28 Aug 2003, Andreas Barth wrote: > Proof: > e.g. look at DFSG 4: [SNIP] > How does this match to docu? Source code in this context refers to the prefered form of modification which is transformed into the form or forms used by the end user or viewer. See SGML, texi, docbook, and pod for

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

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. [ ] The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as published by the Free Software Foundation, is not a license compa

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

Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Thu, Aug 28, 2003 at 06:08:47PM +0300, Richard Braakman wrote: >> On Thu, Aug 28, 2003 at 11:35:16AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote: >> > Why have we another sudden influx of people who haven't read any of >> > the history on this? (Rhetorical. I think we c

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

On 2003-08-28 17:30:36 +0100 Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I _have_ read the history. But in spite of Bruce words the DFSG just doesn't apply plainly to e.g. documentation. [...] You said "DFSG is made with software in mind" and implied that documentation is not a subset of software

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

On Thu, Aug 28, 2003 at 06:08:47PM +0300, Richard Braakman wrote: > On Thu, Aug 28, 2003 at 11:35:16AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote: > > Why have we another sudden influx of people who haven't read any of > > the history on this? (Rhetorical. I think we can guess.) > > I'll answer it anyway: it's becaus

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

On Wed, Aug 27, 2003 at 02:49:18PM +0900, Fedor Zuev wrote: > On Mon, 25 Aug 2003, Andrew Suffield wrote: > > >On Mon, Aug 25, 2003 at 04:22:49PM +0900, Fedor Zuev wrote: > >>There, IMHO, is a subtle difference between a creating > >> derivative work, and using a part of work in the completely

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

* MJ Ray ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030828 12:50]: > On 2003-08-28 09:55:58 +0100 Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >Comment: documentation is not software, and DFSG is made with software > >in mind. [...] > > Please read > http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200308/msg00690

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

(Ignoring the fact that your statement about the DFSG was untrue, which has been pointed out elsewhere...) On Thu, 2003-08-28 at 03:55, Andreas Barth wrote: > Having said this, we must now try to work without the special rules as > good as possible, unless someone proposes these rules in time for

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

On Thu, Aug 28, 2003 at 11:35:16AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote: > Why have we another sudden influx of people who haven't read any of > the history on this? (Rhetorical. I think we can guess.) I'll answer it anyway: it's because our conclusions are reaching a wider audience, which means we have more pe

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

On 2003-08-28 09:55:58 +0100 Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Comment: documentation is not software, and DFSG is made with software in mind. [...] Please read http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200308/msg00690.html for more information on what was in mind when DFS

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

Andreas Barth wrote: Comment: documentation is not software, and DFSG is made with software in mind. Actually, the DSFG _was_ made with documentation in mind. Bruce Perens wrote: > I intended for the entire contents of that CD to be under the rights stated > in the DSFG - be they software, do

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

=== 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. [ ] The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as published by the Free Software Foundation, is n

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

=== 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. [ ] The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as published by the Free Software Foundation, is

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

=== 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. [ ] The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as published by the Free Software Foundation

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

On Thu, 21 Aug 2003 05:15:10 +, Branden Robinson wrote: > === 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,

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

On Mon, 25 Aug 2003, Andrew Suffield wrote: >On Mon, Aug 25, 2003 at 04:22:49PM +0900, Fedor Zuev wrote: >> There, IMHO, is a subtle difference between a creating >> derivative work, and using a part of work in the completely >> unrelated other work. But you, of course, may disagree. I just r

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

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- On Thu, 21 Aug 2003 05:15:10 +, Branden Robinson wrote: > === 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. > > [

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

Fedor Zuev wrote: > Overgeneralization is not always good. Worrying about a >possible problems in the far future instead of problems existed now >in not nessesaryly involve promotion of freedom. I worry about hypothetical issues now to avoid there being a large quantity of GFDLed material i

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

Le lun 25/08/2003 à 16:21, Fedor Zuev a écrit : > On Mon, 25 Aug 2003, Josselin Mouette wrote: > > >Le lun 25/08/2003 ? 09:22, Fedor Zuev a ?crit : > >> When you try to apply license outside of its scope you should expect > >> to receive funny results. GFDL has a very narrow scope. It is bad. > >>

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

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Thursday 21 August 2003 07:09, 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 F

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

On Mon, 25 Aug 2003, Josselin Mouette wrote: >Le lun 25/08/2003 ? 09:22, Fedor Zuev a ?crit : >> When you try to apply license outside of its scope you should expect >> to receive funny results. GFDL has a very narrow scope. It is bad. >> But it is different problem. >No, it is exactly one of the

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

On Mon, 25 Aug 2003, Matthew Garrett wrote: >>When you try to apply license outside of its scope you should expect >>to receive funny results. GFDL has a very narrow scope. It is bad. >>But it is different problem. >The GFDL may only be intended for documentation and the like, but >if I want to u

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

On 2003-08-23 02:33:12 +0100 John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Are you saying that you would be amendable to the idea of a DFSG that is slightly modified to make it more applicable to documentation as well? I am totally opposed to modifying the DFSG. They are already clearly applicabl

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

On Mon, Aug 25, 2003 at 04:22:49PM +0900, Fedor Zuev wrote: > There, IMHO, is a subtle difference between a creating > derivative work, and using a part of work in the completely > unrelated other work. But you, of course, may disagree. I just reply > to the words, and not try to clairvoyant

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

Le lun 25/08/2003 à 09:22, Fedor Zuev a écrit : > When you try to apply license outside of its scope you should expect > to receive funny results. GFDL has a very narrow scope. It is bad. > But it is different problem. No, it is exactly one of the problems. Have you ever read the DFSG? -- .''`.

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

Fedor Zuev wrote: > There, IMHO, is a subtle difference between a creating >derivative work, and using a part of work in the completely >unrelated other work. But you, of course, may disagree. I just reply >to the words, and not try to clairvoyant a thoughts. There may well be. It remains a

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

On Sun, 24 Aug 2003, Joe Wreschnig wrote: >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 docum

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

[ Take #2; hoping to hit -legal this time, as my first attempt to reply somehow ended up on -devel. Caffeine underrun, probably. ] * Branden Robinson > Part 1. DFSG-freeness of the GNU Free Documentation License 1.2 > > Please mark with an "X" the item that most closely approximates your

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: 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: [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: [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

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

On Sat, Aug 23, 2003 at 10:02:53AM +0200, Arnoud Galactus Engelfriet wrote: > Steve Langasek wrote: > > No, US law does not recognize the concept of a creator's "moral rights" > > with respect to *any* work, software or not. > It's not very popular, but since the US became a party to the > Berne

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

Fedor Zuev wrote: >On Fri, 22 Aug 2003, Matthew Garrett wrote: >>Right, and invariant sections can be useful for software. So what? > > Goal of the free software movement, as declared by FSF :-) >is a completely replace proprietary software world. > > Here you want to state that some us

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

=== 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 published by the Free Software Foundation, is

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

On Fri, Aug 22, 2003 at 08:33:12PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote: > On Fri, Aug 22, 2003 at 08:47:17PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote: > > On 2003-08-22 19:21:22 +0100 Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > > > > >"DFSG-free Debian bits" > > > > Yes, reading it back a few hours later, I see that was

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

Steve Langasek wrote: > No, US law does not recognize the concept of a creator's "moral rights" > with respect to *any* work, software or not. 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:/

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

On Sat, 22 Aug 2003, Henning Makholm wrote: >Scripsit Fedor Zuev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> KD> So, no text from a document licensed under the >> KD> GFDL which contained an invariant section could be included in an >> KD> encyclopedia, since the invariant section would now be part of >> KD> the "mai

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

On Fri, Aug 22, 2003 at 08:47:17PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote: > On 2003-08-22 19:21:22 +0100 Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > >"DFSG-free Debian bits" > > Yes, reading it back a few hours later, I see that was a particularly > clumsy phrase. By "DFSG-free" there, I meant "free of DFS

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

On Fri, 22 Aug 2003 14:36:03 -0500, John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > On Fri, Aug 22, 2003 at 12:06:26PM -0400, Jeremy Hankins wrote: >> Unless I've missed something, so far there hasn't been anyone >> arguing that the DFSG should not apply to documentation. What >> there has been > I wo

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

On Fri, Aug 22, 2003 at 01:28:29PM +0200, Joerg Wendland 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 cha

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

On Fri, Aug 22, 2003 at 01:28:29PM +0200, Joerg Wendland 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 cha

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 -- Joerg "joergland" Wendland GPG: 51CF8417 FP: 79C0 7671 AFC7 315E 657A F318 57A3 7FBD 51CF 8417

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

Scripsit Fedor Zuev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > KD> So, no text from a document licensed under the > KD> GFDL which contained an invariant section could be included in an > KD> encyclopedia, since the invariant section would now be part of > KD> the "main" discussion. > Main topic of encyclopedi

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

Scripsit John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > On Fri, Aug 22, 2003 at 12:06:26PM -0400, Jeremy Hankins wrote: > > Unless I've missed something, so far there hasn't been anyone arguing > > that the DFSG should not apply to documentation. > I would hold that position. But I caution people reading th

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

While these issues are valid and some are quite problematic, they are not differences between documentation and software. All these things apply equally to software, and would give us just as much trouble if they ever arose for documentation. While the issues themselves are not the subject here, I

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

On Fri, Aug 22, 2003 at 09:51:39AM -0500, John Goerzen wrote: > What I am saying is that we need to have a two-part "California-style" > ballot here: > > 1. Do you believe that DFSG should apply to documentation? That's not a question that the readers of debian-legal can answer for the entire Pro

  1   2   >