This is a proposed text for a GR. I can't actually propose a GR (not a
DD), so I request that someone else who cares propose it or a similar
proposal.
---begin proposed GR---
Resolved:
That the DFSG shall be amended, by inserting at the end of clause 3, in italics:
(There is a special exceptio
On Sun, Apr 15, 2007 at 05:50:36PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> This is a proposed text for a GR. I can't actually propose a GR (not a
> DD), so I request that someone else who cares propose it or a similar
> proposal.
>
> ---begin proposed GR---
> Resolved:
> That the DFSG shall be amended
I wrote:
>> Historically, this exception has been an unwritten assumption; in most
>> discussions, this exception has been agreed on by everyone involved.
Wouter Verhelst wrote:
>If that is the case, then why would it be necessary to write this down
>in the DFSG? Personally, I don't think we ne
Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...]
> Without this exception, if the DFSG were followed literally, most
> license texts could not be shipped in Debian and would have to be
> shipped alongside Debian instead, which would be very annoying.
Most? I thought most licence texts were cov
On Mon, 16 Apr 2007 09:11:52 +0100 (BST) MJ Ray wrote:
> Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...]
> > Without this exception, if the DFSG were followed literally, most
> > license texts could not be shipped in Debian and would have to be
> > shipped alongside Debian instead, which would
>Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...]
>> Without this exception, if the DFSG were followed literally, most
>> license texts could not be shipped in Debian and would have to be
>> shipped alongside Debian instead, which would be very annoying.
>
MJ Ray wrote:
>Most? I thought most l
Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Mon, 16 Apr 2007 09:11:52 +0100 (BST) MJ Ray wrote: [...]
> > Has it? I've seen a few people write down this assumption, but I've
> > usually disagreed with them.
>
> I'm afraid you then think that you have to purge every GPLv2 preamble
> from Debian main.
Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [GPL/LGPL addressed in an earlier thread.]
> The Academic Free License does not have
> permission to modify. The LaTeX Project Public License does not have
> permission to modify.
I think AFL is not a DFSG-free licence because of its excessive
Mutua
On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 09:51:15 +0100 (BST) MJ Ray wrote:
> Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > On Mon, 16 Apr 2007 09:11:52 +0100 (BST) MJ Ray wrote: [...]
> > > Has it? I've seen a few people write down this assumption, but
> > > I've usually disagreed with them.
> >
> > I'm afraid you then th
MJ Ray wrote:
>There may be a few licences that are buggy about this and to which we
>want to grant a limited-time exception, but that is not unusual. Use
>a GR for only that, not a permanent foundation document edit.
>> Care to craft another solution? [...]
>No, I've no interest
You just did cr
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Nathanael
Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
MJ Ray wrote:
There may be a few licences that are buggy about this and to which we
want to grant a limited-time exception, but that is not unusual. Use
a GR for only that, not a permanent foundation document edit.
C
Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> asked:
> Are there many other greynesses in how the SC and the DFSG are
> interpreted?
Amazingly few, but yes, as some of it is based on guessing how
still-changing legal systems are developing, or how particular licensors
will react to our actions.
At least twi
Nathanael Nerode writes ("Re: Request for GR: clarifying the license text
licensing / freeness issue"):
> Alternate suggested GR text:
> ---
> The Debian Project notes that many license texts are copyrighted
> works, licensed only under meta-licen
On Wed, Apr 18, 2007 at 11:59:21AM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> I disagree with this position. See Fabian Fagerholm's explanation.
> For a strong copyleft licence like the GPL it's particularly
> troublesome if people go around making minor edits: all of that code
> is licence-incompatible with all
On Wed, 18 Apr 2007 10:06:22 +0100 (BST) MJ Ray wrote:
> Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> asked:
> > Are there many other greynesses in how the SC and the DFSG are
> > interpreted?
>
> Amazingly few, but yes,
[...]
> Licences are another type of greyness: unlike Mozilla's software, it's
> very
Hello,
Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> (There is a special exception for the license texts and similar legal
> documents associated with works in Debian; modifications and derived
> works of these legal texts do not need to be allowed. This is a
> compromise: the Debian group encourages authors of
Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I disagree with this position. See Fabian Fagerholm's explanation.
> For a strong copyleft licence like the GPL it's particularly
> troublesome if people go around making minor edits: all of that code
> is licence-incompatible with all unedited-GPL code.
On Thu, 19 Apr 2007, Ben Finney wrote:
> This doesn't address the concern that motivated this discussion:
> that the license texts which have restrictions on modification are
> non-free works by the DFSG, yet are being distributed in Debian
> against the Social Contract.
License texts which are be
Anthony W. Youngman wrote:
>Licence documents MUST be invariant. They are legal documents, with
>legal force, and you're trying to give the recipient the right to mess
>about with them!
No, you're wrong. This is a FAQ. There's a difference between
changing the license for a work (impossible)
Ian Jackson wrote:
>If this is forced to a GR we should have an option along these
>lines:
>
> We note that many license texts are copyrighted works, licensed only
> under meta-licenses which prohibit the creation of derivative
> license texts.
>
> We do not consider this a problem.
Although
Don Armstrong wrote:
>I don't believe we need an amendment to the Social Contract to
>specifically state this as the case, but a correctly worded one which
>specifically amended the social contract and/or the DFSG appropriately
>may be worth some thought.
>
>Unfortunatly, the currently proposed ame
On Thu, 19 Apr 2007, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> How about: "There is a special exception for the texts of the
> licenses under which works in Debian are distributed;"
It's not just enough for that; it has to be a license specifically
being used as a license under which a work in Debian is being
dis
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Nathanael
Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
Anthony W. Youngman wrote:
Licence documents MUST be invariant. They are legal documents, with
legal force, and you're trying to give the recipient the right to mess
about with them!
No, you're wrong. This is a FAQ.
Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, 19 Apr 2007, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> > How about: "There is a special exception for the texts of the
> > licenses under which works in Debian are distributed;"
>
> It's not just enough for that; it has to be a license specifically
> being used
* Ian Jackson:
> I disagree with this position. See Fabian Fagerholm's explanation.
> For a strong copyleft licence like the GPL it's particularly
> troublesome if people go around making minor edits: all of that code
> is licence-incompatible with all unedited-GPL code. So the FSF have
> worked
Ben Finney writes ("Re: Request for GR: clarifying the license text licensing /
freeness issue"):
> Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > The status quo is quite fine and should be left as it is.
>
> This doesn't address the concern that motivated this
On Fri, 20 Apr 2007, Ben Finney wrote:
> Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Thu, 19 Apr 2007, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> > > How about: "There is a special exception for the texts of the
> > > licenses under which works in Debian are distributed;"
> >
> > It's not just enough for that;
Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Ben Finney writes ("Re: Request for GR: clarifying the license text licensing
> / freeness issue"):
> > [The status quo] doesn't address the concern that motivated this
> > discussion: that the license texts whic
On Sun, 22 Apr 2007 09:35:50 +0100 Anthony W. Youngman wrote:
[...]
> The *perceived* problem with the GPL is that the FSF has forbidden
> modified versions to mention the name GPL, the FSF, or carry Richard's
> pre-ramble (sic :-).
The grant of permissions is awkwardly given in the GPL FAQ:
htt
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ben Finney
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Ben Finney writes ("Re: Request for GR: clarifying the license text licensing /
freeness issue"):
> [The status quo] doesn't address the concern th
"Anthony W. Youngman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Where a licence text accompanies a package it must, as a matter of
> law, be unchangeable.
This would hold even if the license on the GPL document permitted any
kind of modification. Those modifications would not change the license
terms under w
On Sun, Apr 22, 2007 at 09:30:51AM +1000, Ben Finney wrote:
> > > [The status quo] doesn't address the concern that motivated this
> > > discussion: that the license texts which have restrictions on
> > > modification are non-free works by the DFSG, yet are being
> > > distributed in Debian against
On Tue, Apr 17, 2007 at 03:59:08PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote: Frankly
> I'd be happy with any honest solution. Currently the promise made in the
> Social Contract is very stark, very bold, and also untrue. The DFSG are
> very stark and bold about this as well. Lots of "must", "never" and
> "
Josip Rodin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Yes, the social contract says that the Debian system and all of its
> components will be fully free; but for all practical intents and
> purposes (heh), the accompanying license texts are as much a
> "component" of the "system" as is the media the system i
On Mon, Apr 23, 2007 at 12:37:16PM +1000, Ben Finney wrote:
> Josip Rodin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Also, nobody cares for statements that can be normalized to 'you can
> > do all this, except that, that, that, and that', and those should
> > also be avoided if we want readers to take the spi
On Mon, Apr 23, 2007 at 12:37:16PM +1000, Ben Finney wrote:
> > Yes, the social contract says that the Debian system and all of its
> > components will be fully free; but for all practical intents and
> > purposes (heh), the accompanying license texts are as much a
> > "component" of the "system" a
On Mon, 2007-04-23 at 12:37 +1000, Ben Finney wrote:
> License texts *are* distributed by Debian, now, under terms that are
> non-free. This behaviour doesn't match the Social Contract.
Is there any package in Debian which includes a license that is not
being distributed as the terms of use and di
> Egad, it sounds like you actually live in an evil parallel universe where
> idealism is inherently dishonest and false. That universe must really suck. :)
There's a difference between idealism and lying about adhering to one's
ideals.
> Please, try to remember the spirit of those promises, rath
On Mon, Apr 23, 2007 at 09:48:51AM -0400, Clint Adams wrote:
> > Egad, it sounds like you actually live in an evil parallel universe where
> > idealism is inherently dishonest and false. That universe must really suck.
> > :)
>
> There's a difference between idealism and lying about adhering to o
Josip Rodin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, Apr 23, 2007 at 12:37:16PM +1000, Ben Finney wrote:
> > License texts *are* distributed by Debian, now, under terms that
> > are non-free. This behaviour doesn't match the Social Contract.
>
> Sure, they are technically being distributed, but not a
Josip Rodin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, Apr 23, 2007 at 09:48:51AM -0400, Clint Adams wrote:
> > There's a difference between idealism and lying about adhering to
> > one's ideals.
>
> Yeah, and we're not lying about adhering to our ideals simply by
> distributing the obligatory license
Fabian Fagerholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Also, consider DFSG §10:
> The "GPL", "BSD", and "Artistic" licenses are examples of
> licenses that we consider "free".
>
> Then recall that the meta-license of the GPL permits no modification
> (relaxed by FSF policy to be permitted
On Tue, Apr 24, 2007 at 08:24:39AM +1000, Ben Finney wrote:
> > > There's a difference between idealism and lying about adhering to
> > > one's ideals.
> >
> > Yeah, and we're not lying about adhering to our ideals simply by
> > distributing the obligatory license data. If we weren't doing that,
>
Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Personally, I don't see "distributing non-modifiable license texts"
> to be "violating the social contract".
I'm curious to know how you reconcile Social Contract §1 and DFSG §3,
and the fact that we distribute non-modifiable texts in Debian.
--
\
On Tue, Apr 24, 2007 at 08:07:03AM +1000, Ben Finney wrote:
> The Social Contract makes a promise we are not keeping. You say it's
> "not ... something the social contract cares about". That's not at all
> clear from reading it -- the social contract makes a straightforward
> promise, which has no
On Tue, 2007-04-24 at 08:28 +1000, Ben Finney wrote:
> Because the meta-license of the GPL is *not* free, as you pointed
> out. The licenses are free, because they grant the right freedoms for
> a work when applied to that work. The license texts are not free,
> because they do not have those same
Fabian Fagerholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The meta-license of the GPL is part of the text of the GPL. The DFSG
> doesn't say: only part of the GPL is considered "free". It says that
> the GPL, as a whole, including the meta-license, is considered
> "free".
The context of that statement is th
On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 00:44:30 +0200, Ben Finney
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'm curious to know how you reconcile Social Contract §1 and DFSG §3,
and the fact that we distribute non-modifiable texts in Debian.
Easy. DFSG §3 talks about the software, and a license is not software -
neither so
On Tue, 2007-04-24 at 18:13 +1000, Ben Finney wrote:
> The context of that statement is the GPL as a license, not as a
> work. The license, applied to another work, is free.
>
> The GPL as a work, however, is *not* free, since the license on that
> work does not grant the requisite freedoms. Surel
On 23/04/07, Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Personally, I don't see "distributing non-modifiable license texts" to
be "violating the social contract". I don't think anyone ever will
consider that to be the case, either.
That's how I felt too about non-modifiable personal opinions, b
On Tue, 24 Apr 2007, Fabian Fagerholm wrote:
> > The GPL as a work, however, is *not* free, since the license on that
> > work does not grant the requisite freedoms. Surely there's no
> > disagreement on this?
> It is irrelevant, because of several reasons that have already been
> pointed out in th
On Thu, 2007-04-26 at 16:32 -0700, Ken Arromdee wrote:
> What are you talking about?
Unless I'm mistaken, the topic is to consider a request for a GR that
would add language to the DFSG saying that licenses need not be
modifiable. :)
> If by "legal composition of copyright" you mean "license text
On Fri, 27 Apr 2007, Fabian Fagerholm wrote:
> What I'm saying is that the DFSG can only be applied to a certain point.
> We can require that license terms applied to works are DFSG-free. We can
> require that license terms applied to those licenses-as-works are
> DFSG-free. We can require that the
On Tue, Apr 24, 2007 at 08:44:30AM +1000, Ben Finney wrote:
> Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Personally, I don't see "distributing non-modifiable license texts"
> > to be "violating the social contract".
>
> I'm curious to know how you reconcile Social Contract §1 and DFSG §3,
On Sun, 2007-04-29 at 09:25 -0700, Ken Arromdee wrote:
> I still don't see the problem.
>
> First of all, the interpretation we wish to claim consistency under is "all
> bits that are distributed by Debian must follow the DFSG". Copyright law is
> not distributed by Debian, and needs no exception
On Tue, 1 May 2007, Fabian Fagerholm wrote:
> > First of all, the interpretation we wish to claim consistency under is "all
> > bits that are distributed by Debian must follow the DFSG". Copyright law is
> > not distributed by Debian, and needs no exception.
> Neither do licenses, which are distri
56 matches
Mail list logo
