Le dimanche 22 janvier 2006 à 13:13 -0600, Manoj Srivastava a écrit :
> A) The delegates decision that the GFDL licensed works are non-free is
>wrong, the GFDL meets the DFSG. Override the delegated decision,
>and issue the following statement "..."
> B) The delegates decision that the GFD
Le lundi 23 janvier 2006 à 01:45 +0200, Anton Zinoviev a écrit :
> GNU Free Documentation License protects the freedom,
> it is compatible with Debian Free Software Guidelines
And I thought Debian politics stayed away from populism...
--
.''`. Josselin Mouette/\./\
: :' :
Scripsit Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Whether the GFDL conflicts with the DFSG is not a matter of opinion.
> It either conflicts or it doesn't. The question is really who decides
> whether it conflicts.
It now becomes time for the obligatory reminder that
The G in DFSG stands for "gu
On Tue, 2006-01-24 at 13:58 +1300, Anthony Towns wrote:
> I don't think that makes any sense; ignoring the fact I don't think that
> "GFDL is non-free" is a "delegate's decision", I don't think it makes
> any sense to take an action on this without offering an explanation of
> why at the same time.
On Tue, 2006-01-24 at 00:02 +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Fabian Fagerholm ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060123 22:44]:
> > This General Resolution partly reverts an earlier decision by the
> > Release Management team, taken under delegation in accordance with the
> > Debian Constitution, to remove all wo
On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 07:59:44PM -0600, Peter Samuelson wrote:
> People should think long and hard about this requirement, independent
> of whether it is DFSG-compliant. Think about the implications for the
> ftp.debian.org mirror network, and for CD and DVD vendors. It's a
> pretty significant
On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 09:35:32AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Adeodato Sim? <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > * Russ Allbery [Mon, 23 Jan 2006 09:17:14 -0800]:
> >> If we're going to put all the options on the ballot, let's go ahead and
> >> put them *all* on the ballot so that no significant group
[Anton Zinoviev]
> If Debian decided that GFDL is not free, this would mean that Debian
> attempted to impose on the free software community alternative
> meaning of "free software", effectively violating its Social Contract
> with the free software community.
That does not follow at all. If the
Manoj wrote:
> So, I am seeking arguments and guidance from the developer
> body whether issue 1 can, and should, be decidable by a general
> resolution, or whether the freeness of the GFDL licensed works
> without invariant clauses is incontrovertibly non-free, as the
> license is curr
On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 01:45:40AM +0200, Anton Zinoviev wrote:
> Hereby I am proposing an amendment to the GR about GFDL opened by
> Anthony Towns [Sun, 01 Jan 2006 15:02:04 +1000]
(The proposal actually became formal on the 12th, and that's the one you're
amending, fwiw)
> GNU Free Documentatio
[Russ Allbery]
> If we're going to put all the options on the ballot, let's go ahead
> and put them *all* on the ballot so that no significant group of DDs
> can later claim that their opinion wasn't represented by the choices.
I think everyone is forgetting this one (IMHO pretty reasonable)
opti
[Bill Allombert]
> > > No, the GPL does not ban proprietary software companies from
> > > using the software.
> >
> > Exactly. And neither does the GFDL ban people from using the
> > documentation if they work in a security field.
>
> The GFDL does ban them: they are not allowed to copy the doc
* Fabian Fagerholm ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060123 22:44]:
> This General Resolution partly reverts an earlier decision by the
> Release Management team, taken under delegation in accordance with the
> Debian Constitution, to remove all works licensed under the GNU FDL from
> the main section of the De
Graham Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> What sections of the DFSG do you think GFDL documents without invariant
> sections fail?
I've been thinking a lot about this issue, and I think it basically
revolves around one's interpretation of the first two points of the DFSG:
| Free Redistribution
On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 11:40:39PM +0200, Anton Zinoviev wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 04:32:09PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> >
> > If you then remove most of the content from that document so that only
> > the relevant bits for a manual page and those secondary sections are
> > left behind
martin f krafft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> also sprach Fabian Fagerholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006.01.23.2241 +0100]:
>> After reading all the recent posts about the GFDL on debian-vote, I
>> hereby propose the following General Resolution and ask for seconds.
> I don't have the time these days
On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 12:40:30PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 22, 2006 at 03:42:39PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > > And what? If someone tries to bring through a GR stating that
> > > MS office warez can be distributed in main since it meets the DFSG,
> > > one mi
On Sat, Jan 21, 2006 at 02:52:01PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Q1.1) Are GFDL licensed works without invariant texts non-free?
>
>Well, according to the RM team, and some developers (full
>disclosure: myself included), yes, they are, even if there is no
>explicit infraction of s
also sprach Fabian Fagerholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006.01.23.2241 +0100]:
> After reading all the recent posts about the GFDL on debian-vote, I
> hereby propose the following General Resolution and ask for seconds.
I don't have the time these days to follow the entire discussion.
How does your pro
[ Bcc'ed to -project, -devel and -legal, any further discussion and/or
seconds on -vote, please. ]
After reading all the recent posts about the GFDL on debian-vote, I
hereby propose the following General Resolution and ask for seconds.
--8<--
The Debian Project asserts that
Works licensed under
On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 04:32:09PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
>
> If you then remove most of the content from that document so that only
> the relevant bits for a manual page and those secondary sections are
> left behind, then it could very well be that 10% of the resulting text
> is your tech
FWIW, I second the amendment quoted below.
Anton Zinoviev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> GNU Free Documentation License protects the freedom,
> it is compatible with Debian Free Software Guidelines
> ~~
> (0) Summary
> This is the position of D
On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 01:08:46PM -0600, Peter Samuelson wrote:
>
> [Bill Allombert]
> > > > There exist fields of endeavours that require mandatory
> > > > encryption. For example, if you work in security-sensitive
> > > > field, you can be required to use a hard-drive with built-in
> > > > enc
[Bill Allombert]
> > > There exist fields of endeavours that require mandatory
> > > encryption. For example, if you work in security-sensitive
> > > field, you can be required to use a hard-drive with built-in
> > > encryption. This technology certainly control who can read the
> > > disk. In
On Mon, 23 Jan 2006, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> > No, the GPL does not ban proprietary software companies from using
> > the software.
>
> Not *yet*. GPLv3 does (with the Patent related clauses) ;p does it
> makes GPLv3 non free ?
No, it imposes duties on entites who control patents (or have patent
On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 03:23:02PM -0300, Daniel Ruoso wrote:
> I mean, I know the license says "the copies you make or distribute",
> but, by definition, wouldn't it apply only to the act of distribution?
No. By default, copyright does not grant you a license to copy a work;
if the license allows
Em Seg, 2006-01-23 às 10:28 +0100, Wouter Verhelst escreveu:
> On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 10:41:25AM +0200, Anton Zinoviev wrote:
> > If you do not have any access to my encrypted or "chmod -r" copy, then
> > I am not controllyng your reading or further copying
> Really. If you maintain a copy of a GF
On Sun, Jan 22, 2006 at 03:42:39PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > And what? If someone tries to bring through a GR stating that
> > MS office warez can be distributed in main since it meets the DFSG,
> > one might rule that as frivolous and a waste of time.
>
> I'm not convinced the c
Adeodato Simó <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> * Russ Allbery [Mon, 23 Jan 2006 09:17:14 -0800]:
>> If we're going to put all the options on the ballot, let's go ahead and
>> put them *all* on the ballot so that no significant group of DDs can
>> later claim that their opinion wasn't represented by t
On Mon, 23 Jan 2006, Russ Allbery wrote:
> In that case, could someone please propose an amendment which captures the
> *other* regularly voiced opinion, namely that GFDL without invarient
> sections is DFSG-free but with invarient sections is not, and phrase that
> in an appropriate form as an ove
* Russ Allbery [Mon, 23 Jan 2006 09:17:14 -0800]:
> If we're going to put all the options on the ballot, let's go ahead and
> put them *all* on the ballot so that no significant group of DDs can later
> claim that their opinion wasn't represented by the choices.
Latelly, I'm thinking that this
Raphael Hertzog <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I second the amendment proposed by Anton Zinoviev in
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>.
> I think that the whole body of Debian developers have their right to
> express how they interpret the GFDL and that we need to vote on the
> subject. This amendment being a
* Pierre Habouzit [Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 04:23:46PM +0100]:
> > No, the GPL does not ban proprietary software companies from using
> > the software.
>
> Not *yet*. GPLv3 does (with the Patent related clauses) ;p
I really don't think the current draft "ban proprietary software
companies from using
On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 12:59:54PM +0200, Anton Zinoviev wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 10:28:18AM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> >
> > That, I can agree with. So let's do that: let's see at what restrictions
> > are imposed, and whether they would allow me to modify the document so
> > that it
> > > Fact 3:
> > >
> > > There exist fields of endeavours that require mandatory
> > > encryption. For example, if you work in security-sensitive field,
> > > you can be required to use a hard-drive with built-in encryption.
> > > This technology certainly control who can read the disk. In
> > >
On Sun, Jan 22, 2006 at 04:19:49PM -0600, Peter Samuelson wrote:
>
> [Bill Allombert]
> > Fact 1: The GFDL include this:
> >
> > "You may not use technical measures to obstruct or control the
> > reading or further copying of the copies you make or distribute."
> >
> > Fact 2: The DFSG includ
On Monday 23 January 2006 14:37, Xavier Roche wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 01:45:40AM +0200, Anton Zinoviev wrote:
> > Hereby I am proposing an amendment to the GR about GFDL opened by
> > Anthony Towns [Sun, 01 Jan 2006 15:02:04 +1000]
> > GNU Free Documentation License protects the freedom,
>
On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 01:45:40AM +0200, Anton Zinoviev wrote:
> Hereby I am proposing an amendment to the GR about GFDL opened by
> Anthony Towns [Sun, 01 Jan 2006 15:02:04 +1000]
> GNU Free Documentation License protects the freedom,
> it is compatible with Debian Free Software Guidelines
I sec
Anton Zinoviev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The point is there is no practical difference whether the GNU
> Manifesto is placed in the preamble of the license or it is placed in
> an invariant section.
Actually, there is. I think that the consensus of debian-legal has
been that we must accept the
On Mon, 23 Jan 2006, Anton Zinoviev wrote:
> Hereby I am proposing an amendment to the GR about GFDL opened by
> Anthony Towns [Sun, 01 Jan 2006 15:02:04 +1000]
>
> I wish to thank everybody who will support this amendment, especially
> I wish to thank those who second it.
I second the amendment
On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 10:28:18AM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
>
> That, I can agree with. So let's do that: let's see at what restrictions
> are imposed, and whether they would allow me to modify the document so
> that it would allow me to do anything I, as a Debian maintainer, would
> want to
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Q1.1) Are GFDL licensed works without invariant texts non-free?
>
>Well, according to the RM team, and some developers (full
>disclosure: myself included), yes, they are, even if there is no
>explicit infraction of specific portions of ou
On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 10:41:25AM +0200, Anton Zinoviev wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 02:29:38AM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 01:45:40AM +0200, Anton Zinoviev wrote:
> >
> > > For example the GNU General Public License contains the following
> > > clause:
> > >
> >
On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 02:29:38AM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 01:45:40AM +0200, Anton Zinoviev wrote:
>
> > For example the GNU General Public License contains the following
> > clause:
> >
> >If the modified program normally reads commands interactively when
> >
44 matches
Mail list logo
