On Mon, Jan 30, 2006 at 01:47:02PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> If the 3:1 requirement is to mean anything, it must mean that things
> which explicitly *or implicitly* modify foundation documents must
> receive a 3:1 majority. It certainly cannot be limited only to things
> which explicitly
On Wed, Feb 01, 2006 at 05:17:24PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Suppose we have a case where a majority of the developers want to
> change the DFSG, but they don't have enough to win a 3:1 vote.
>
> All they need to do, if you are right, is proceed to declare that
> their change is really j
"Wesley J. Landaker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> My argument is that it's an absolutely and completely valid
> interpretation--in the full spirit of the DFSG and the Debian project--of
> "The license must permit modifications" to say that it means instead, "The
> license must permit reasonable
Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> there's no law that specifically states you can't remove a credit or
> copyright notice, either - it's just convention AND the fact that you
> don't have any right to edit & redistribute except that which is granted
> by the license.
Sorry, you are wrong
On Wed, Feb 01, 2006 at 01:25:37PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>
> But you have not explained how your amendment is an interpretation
> rather than a modification of the DFSG. You cannot simply write
> something new, and say "and this is an interpretation of the DFSG!"
> It must actually *b
On Wed, Feb 01, 2006 at 03:24:16PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>
> I beg to differ. There is a reason the foundation docuyments
> have a 3:1 modification requirement: If a simple majority were
> enough to "interpret" codicils on a novel and unconvetional fashion,
> then there is no p
On Wed, Feb 01, 2006 at 11:00:34PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>
> Yes, I am uneasy myself on that clause. But see, I regard
> removal of copyright notices as prohibited by copyright law, and if
> the original program displayed copyright notices, not being able to
> remove those noti
On Wed, Feb 01, 2006 at 01:36:09PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>
> Can you please explain then where the DFSG contains any statement of
> limitation on the concept of modifiability? Where does it allow for
> any limitations on modifiability?
>
> More specifically: if there is such a limita
On Wed, Feb 01, 2006 at 01:32:17PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>
> If your proposal is as Manoj construed it, a proposal to modify the
> DFSG, then I agree it is not ad hoc.
>
> But if it is a proposal to *interpret* the *existing* DFSG, then the
> *interpretation* is ad hoc.
The text of m
On Wed, Feb 01, 2006 at 03:32:00PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Wed, 1 Feb 2006 19:22:10 +0200, Anton Zinoviev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> >> If you wish to extend the list of exceptions, that is fine. But
> >> that does mean the DFSG must be clarified to add to the list.
>
> > I don't b
On Wed, Feb 01, 2006 at 03:59:14PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Wed, 1 Feb 2006 23:29:22 +0200, Anton Zinoviev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> > The 3:1 requirement would be necessary only if you can prove that
> > "we insist on modifiability of all parts".
>
> Procedurally, I think
On Wed, Feb 01, 2006 at 01:30:45PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Anton Zinoviev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > The modifications that are permited by GFDL are enough to make useful
> > modifications, that is to adapt the document and to improve it. Yes,
> > you can not do whatever you wh
On Wed, Feb 01, 2006 at 06:32:50PM -0300, Daniel Ruoso wrote:
> Em Qua, 2006-02-01 às 23:28 +0200, Anton Zinoviev escreveu:
> > On Wed, Feb 01, 2006 at 03:11:25PM -0300, Margarita Manterola wrote:
> > > Ok, but by being invariant they are turning the documentation into
> > > non-free documentation.
On Wed, Feb 01, 2006 at 09:48:24PM +, Roger Leigh wrote:
>
> Subject to minor licence considerations, I'm free to modify any piece
> of software in Debian to satisfy my needs. However, this does not
> apply to many GFDL works. "Append only" modification isn't really
> freedom in my book; eve
On Wed, Feb 01, 2006 at 02:17:54PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Yavor Doganov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > No, I think that Anton Zinoviev's amendment to the GR does *not*
> > require a change to the DFSG.
>
> For this to be true, it must seem like a plausible interpretation of
> th
On Wed, Feb 01, 2006 at 04:44:59PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>
> This is a procedural nightmare. What happens if we do split
> things and Anton's proposal asses, we issue a statement, and the DFSG
> amendment fails? We'll have a contradiction between a position
> statement and the
On Wed, Feb 01, 2006 at 01:22:02AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>
> And the DFSG:
> >> The license must allow modifications and derived works, and must
> >> allow them to be distributed under the same terms as the license
> >> of the original software.
In reply to Mano
On Thu, Feb 02, 2006 at 12:05:49PM +0200, Kalle Kivimaa wrote:
> Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > there's no law that specifically states you can't remove a credit or
> > copyright notice, either - it's just convention AND the fact that
> > you don't have any right to edit & redistribu
Anton Zinoviev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> project has not decided this yet. If the project secretary decides
> that my proposal (for GFDL) requires 3:1 supermajority, this would
> mean that the project secretary decides on behalf of the whole project
> that our notion of "free software" differs
Anton Zinoviev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 01, 2006 at 03:24:16PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>>
>> I beg to differ. There is a reason the foundation docuyments
>> have a 3:1 modification requirement: If a simple majority were
>> enough to "interpret" codicils on a novel
Anton Zinoviev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 01, 2006 at 02:17:54PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>> Yavor Doganov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > No, I think that Anton Zinoviev's amendment to the GR does *not*
>> > require a change to the DFSG.
>>
>> For this to be true, i
Anton Zinoviev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> As it has been discussed here, having the Manifesto attached as
>> >> invariant is not only non-free, but also quite problematic when you
>> >> are trying to produce a derivative work that is either a) a
>> >> compilation of many documents
>> >
>> >
Anton Zinoviev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In order to make reasonably evident that this is not just my
> interpretation but also interpretation that is shared by many other
> Debian developers I decided to ask Richard Stallman for the opinion of
> FSF.
>
> This was the question I asked Stallman:
On Thu, Feb 02, 2006 at 06:22:41PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> and, in any case, we're only talking about SECONDARY sections here, not
> about the primary topic(s) of the work - ancillary comments, copyright
> and credit notices, political rants, and so on. whether you agree with
> what the invar
On Thu, 2 Feb 2006 20:13:36 +1100, Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Mon, Jan 30, 2006 at 01:47:02PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>> If the 3:1 requirement is to mean anything, it must mean that
>> things which explicitly *or implicitly* modify foundation documents
>> must receiv
On Thu, 2 Feb 2006 12:39:52 +0200, Anton Zinoviev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Wed, Feb 01, 2006 at 03:24:16PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>>
>> I beg to differ. There is a reason the foundation docuyments have a
>> 3:1 modification requirement: If a simple majority were enough to
>> "inter
On Thu, 2 Feb 2006 18:22:41 +1100, Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Wed, Feb 01, 2006 at 10:57:35PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> Copyright law covers removal of copyright notices; there is no law
>> that prevents removal or modification of sections the author
>> decries invariant
On Thu, 2 Feb 2006 12:49:01 +0200, Anton Zinoviev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Wed, Feb 01, 2006 at 01:22:02AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>>
>> And the DFSG:
>> >> The license must allow modifications and derived works,
>> >> and must allow them to be distributed under the same
On Thu, 2 Feb 2006 12:43:02 +0200, Anton Zinoviev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Wed, Feb 01, 2006 at 03:59:14PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> On Wed, 1 Feb 2006 23:29:22 +0200, Anton Zinoviev
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>>
>> > The 3:1 requirement would be necessary only if you can prove t
On Thu, 2 Feb 2006 12:46:23 +0200, Anton Zinoviev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Wed, Feb 01, 2006 at 04:44:59PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>>
>> This is a procedural nightmare. What happens if we do split things
>> and Anton's proposal asses, we issue a statement, and the DFSG
>> amendment
Anton's ammendment is considered by Manoj to be "implicitly" modifying
the DFSG, since the DSFG say that a license must "allow
modifications", and with Anton's reading this would be "allow
modifications".
There's no way to "implicitly" modify the DFSG. So, to be clear,
please include the diff of
This one time, at band camp, Steve Langasek said:
> On Wed, Feb 01, 2006 at 07:29:51PM +, Stephen Gran wrote:
>
> > It does prohibit code reuse, which I think is one of the things under
> > discussion here. Code under this license can't be mixed with code under
> > the GPL, as I'm sure you're
This one time, at band camp, Thomas Bushnell BSG said:
> Anton Zinoviev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > The modifications that are permited by GFDL are enough to make useful
> > modifications, that is to adapt the document and to improve it. Yes,
> > you can not do whatever you whish but this i
Em Qui, 2006-02-02 às 12:44 +0200, Anton Zinoviev escreveu:
> On Wed, Feb 01, 2006 at 06:32:50PM -0300, Daniel Ruoso wrote:
> > I must remeber that, in this case, you're not letting the user judge if
> > something fits or not to his needs.
> > This breaks freedom 1[1], which DFSG3 clearly refers to
On Thu, 2 Feb 2006 16:40:28 +, Stephen Gran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> This one time, at band camp, Steve Langasek said:
>> On Wed, Feb 01, 2006 at 07:29:51PM +, Stephen Gran wrote:
>>
>> > It does prohibit code reuse, which I think is one of the things
>> > under discussion here. Code
Em Qui, 2006-02-02 às 01:09 +0200, Kalle Kivimaa escreveu:
> Yavor Doganov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > As explained on http://www.gnu.org/licenses/fdl-howto.html, the
> > Invariant sections serve a special purpose, which is the case of the
> > GNU Manifesto. Many users, including myself, consi
On Thu, 02 Feb 2006 11:40:13 -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Thu, 2 Feb 2006 16:40:28 +, Stephen Gran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> We already agree to distribute text we can't modify - that is, the
>> licenses and attributions and the advertising clauses and so forth.
>
> Err. We
This one time, at band camp, Daniel Ruoso said:
> > So, if I were to write a program, which at startup displays the
> > entiretity of the GNU Manifesto, and wrote a license, which would be
> > GPL with the addition that the startup display may not be modified,
> > only amended, you would consider t
This one time, at band camp, Manoj Srivastava said:
> On Thu, 2 Feb 2006 16:40:28 +, Stephen Gran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> > We already agree to distribute text we can't modify - that is, the
> > licenses and attributions and the advertising clauses and so forth.
>
> Err. We dis
On Thu, 02 Feb 2006 20:33:57 +0200, Yavor Doganov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Thu, 02 Feb 2006 11:40:13 -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> On Thu, 2 Feb 2006 16:40:28 +, Stephen Gran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> said:
>>> We already agree to distribute text we can't modify - that is, the
>>> lice
On Thu, 2 Feb 2006 18:49:25 +, Stephen Gran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> This one time, at band camp, Daniel Ruoso said:
>> > So, if I were to write a program, which at startup displays the
>> > entiretity of the GNU Manifesto, and wrote a license, which would
>> > be GPL with the addition tha
Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, Feb 01, 2006 at 05:17:24PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>> Suppose we have a case where a majority of the developers want to
>> change the DFSG, but they don't have enough to win a 3:1 vote.
>>
>> All they need to do, if you are right, is
Anton Zinoviev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Everybody has the right to have his own opinion. I do not insist that
> you have to acknowledge my interpretation as plausible. The point is
> that
>
>1. There is absolutely no decision in the Debian project that would
> make my interpretation inv
On Thu, 2 Feb 2006 18:49:25 +, Stephen Gran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Except that the GPL already explicitly precludes modifications of
> this type (not this scope, but this type, mind you), and our
> foundation documents consider the GPL a free license.
I have been thinking about
Anton Zinoviev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, Feb 01, 2006 at 01:36:09PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>>
>> Can you please explain then where the DFSG contains any statement of
>> limitation on the concept of modifiability? Where does it allow for
>> any limitations on modifiability?
This one time, at band camp, Manoj Srivastava said:
> On Thu, 2 Feb 2006 18:49:25 +, Stephen Gran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> > This one time, at band camp, Daniel Ruoso said:
> >> > So, if I were to write a program, which at startup displays the
> >> > entiretity of the GNU Manifesto, and
Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, Jan 30, 2006 at 01:47:02PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>> If the 3:1 requirement is to mean anything, it must mean that things
>> which explicitly *or implicitly* modify foundation documents must
>> receive a 3:1 majority. It certainly ca
On Thu, 2 Feb 2006 18:58:04 +, Stephen Gran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> This one time, at band camp, Manoj Srivastava said:
>> You have a point about attributions and copyright notices -- but
>> for the most part these are source issues (apart from not deleting
>> interactive copyright notice
[Anton Zinoviev]
> This was the answer by Stallman:
[...]
> The license must give us permissions to modify the work in
>order to adapt it to various needs or to improve it, with no
>substantive limits on the nature of these changes, but there
>can be superficial r
Anton Zinoviev wrote:
> The text of my proposal clearly states that it is not a proposal to
> modify the DFSG. It is not even a proposal to interpret the existing
> DFSG. It makes some of the existing interpretations of DFSG invalid
> but it doesn't suggest which interpretation is the right.
Th
On Thu, 2 Feb 2006 16:46:33 +, Stephen Gran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> This one time, at band camp, Thomas Bushnell BSG said:
>> If I want to reproduce only one small part of a GFDLd manual which
>> has invariant sections, then I can only do so if I reproduce all the
>> invariant sections, wh
Em Qui, 2006-02-02 às 18:49 +, Stephen Gran escreveu:
> This one time, at band camp, Daniel Ruoso said:
> > > So, if I were to write a program, which at startup displays the
> > > entiretity of the GNU Manifesto, and wrote a license, which would be
> > > GPL with the addition that the startup d
This one time, at band camp, Manoj Srivastava said:
> On Thu, 2 Feb 2006 18:49:25 +, Stephen Gran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> > Except that the GPL already explicitly precludes modifications of
> > this type (not this scope, but this type, mind you), and our
> > foundation documents conside
On Thu, Feb 02, 2006 at 01:21:02PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> So, the DFSG are what they say they are --
> guidelines. However, some licenses were deemed by the project to be
> de-facto free, even if they do contravene some of the guidelines,
> hence explicitly naming the GPL and t
On 2/1/06, Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Could some one tell me why including the invariant sections of
> a GFDL licensed work in main would not require us to modify the DFSG
> or the social contract?
I think it's clear that the DFSG would have to be modified.
If nothing
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On the other hand, we've had strong majorities for good suggestions
> in the past. So "DFSG would have to be modified" should not
> be considered an obstacle -- we just have a somewhat stiffer
> requirement that the idea be a good one.
This is my opinion
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I have been thinking about this (originally brought up by
> Russ). I have also been re-reading the SC/DFSG, and the time they
> were written. I also started with the idea that the SC/DFSG are to
> be considered to be consistent, unless str
Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Tue, Jan 31, 2006 at 05:22:39PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> > That's exactly why it's not similar to the things allowed by the
> > patch clause. FDL is more a licence that requires later programmers
> > to add a function that adds to or clarifies or subverts the or
This one time, at band camp, Russ Allbery said:
> Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > So, the DFSG are what they say they are --
> > guidelines. However, some licenses were deemed by the project to be
> > de-facto free, even if they do contravene some of the guidelines,
>
Hi,
I knew I should not speak out loud in this forum before formly
deciding what I believe in :)
On Thu, 02 Feb 2006 15:56:45 -0800, Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> I have been thinking about this (originally brought up by Russ).
On Fri, 3 Feb 2006 10:21:15 +1100, Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Thu, Feb 02, 2006 at 01:21:02PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> So, the DFSG are what they say they are -- guidelines. However,
>> some licenses were deemed by the project to be de-facto free, even
>> if they do con
On Thu, 2 Feb 2006 22:16:49 +, Stephen Gran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> This one time, at band camp, Manoj Srivastava said:
>> On Thu, 2 Feb 2006 18:49:25 +, Stephen Gran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> said:
>>
>> > Except that the GPL already explicitly precludes modifications of
>> > this type
On Fri, Feb 03, 2006 at 12:25:40AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > On Tue, Jan 31, 2006 at 05:22:39PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> > > That's exactly why it's not similar to the things allowed by the
> > > patch clause. FDL is more a licence that requires later programmers
>
Anton Zinoviev write:
>Can you confirm that the second interpretation expresses properly
>what modifications must be allowed about a particular software
>program or documentation for it to be considered free by FSF.
>
> Notice that I intentionaly mentioned both software program and
> d
MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The current opinion of FSF, at least. In the past, RMS has
> worked against advertising clauses far less obnoxious than
> the FDL ones. You could summarise what's happening today with
> http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/bsd.html and doing s/BSD/FDL/g;
> s/sentence/
65 matches
Mail list logo
