On Mon, Jul 07, 2003 at 05:10:38PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Mon, Jul 07, 2003 at 10:34:36PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: > > Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > This license is not actually DFSG-free; it grants the right to make > > > copies, to use copies for creating products, and to distribute copies > > > *internally*, but it does not grant the right to distribute copies > > > publically or to modify the file. > > > The perceived consensus in 2002 was that the license is DFSG-free, but > > this is not my point. (However, sometimes I think it's easier to > > intepret the license itself than the result of the discussion about it > > on this list.) > > Hmm, I've reviewed the archives and it looks like you're right here.
I see nothing approaching consensus. Starting from: http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2002/debian-devel-200211/msg02884.html and proceeding through the thread, we have: Radovan Garabik does not mention license freeness at all Thomas Bushnell " Richard Braakman questions license freeness Branden Robinson says it's not DFSG-free Jim Penny ridicules Branden and says license doesn't *have* to be DFSG-free Branden Robinson attempts to explain DFSG to Jim Jim Penny ridicules Branden, DFSG and Social Contract Tim Dijkstra non-Debian Developer proposes amending the DFSG and/or Social Contract Giacomo Catenazzi says we can live without standards in main Tim Dijkstra says we need this standard in main, regardless of the license terms Richard Braakman points out hazards of this standard's current license John Hasler opines on copyrightability of Perl's version of this file Emile van Bergen opines on copyright policy Richard Braakman discusses British "copyrighted silence" case Mark Brown " Paul Hampson " John Hasler proposes alternative, non-copyrighted alternative to file in question Emile van Bergen more discussion of copyright scope Richard Braakman " Emile van Bergen " Paul Hampson " John Hasler discusses civil vs. criminal copyright laws Hamish Moffatt points out another work that may have a similar licensing restriction Tim Dijkstra says "it's OK" that standards docs be non-DFSG-free Thomas Bushnell points out that the issue isn't whether "it's OK", but whether it's DFSG-free or not Brian May wonders about DFSG-freeness of some Debian Project documents Branden Robinson attempts to answer Brian's questions Bernhard R. Link says Jim Penny is missing the point Jim Penny vigorously defends license, but explicitly claims it's DFSG-non-free Nick Phillips ridicules Jim Penny David Starner says all Unicode-aware apps would be derived works of UnicodeData.txt if the latter is copyrightable Branden Robinson wonders about differing scopes of copyright in different countries Moving on to December: http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2002/debian-devel-200212/msg00004.html Bernhard R. Link ridicules Jim Penny Jim Penny ridicules Bernhard R. Link, reiterates claim that license does not satisfy the DFSG Branden Robinson attempts to answer one of Jim Penny's (rhetorical?) questions, again about scope of copyright Craig Dickson points out that lack of permission to make modified versions fails the DFSG Branden Robinson agrees with Craig Thomas Bushnell agrees with Craig; argues distinction between standards and works conforming to that standard Florian Weimer off-topic [I'm getting tired] Jim Penny argues with Nick, says again that UnicodeData.txt fails DFSG 3 Richard Braakman argues with Jim about whether it's a good thing that UnicodeData.txt fails the DFSG Jim Penny says that DFSG-free standards are useless Richard Braakman argues with Jim Thomas Bushnell says we shouldn't distribute things without permission Thomas Bushnell discusses "null extraction" Jim Penny says Thomas is right but wrong Thomas Bushnell argues with Jim about "license laundering" David Starner off-topic Jim Penny off-topic Jim Penny says essentially that if Unicode is non-free, any Unicode based thing in main must be moved to contrib Thomas Bushnell argues with Jim Bernhard R. Link argues with Jim Thomas Bushnell reinforces Bernhard John Hasler asks what the UnicodeData.txt file is for Thomas Bushnell attempts to answer John David Starner attempts to answer John John Hasler says UnicodeData.txt's copyright is unenforcible John Hasler another take on the above John Hasler another reply to Thomas Jim Penny points out real-world "derivations" of UnicodeData.txt Thomas Bushnell accuses John of "raising FUD" John Hasler rebuts Thomas, questions DFSG-freeness of file at issue Thomas Bushnell rebuts John Branden Robinson discusses scope of copyright Jim Penny argues that Unicode is a creative work Thomas Bushnell charges that Jim's point is irrelevant Jim Penny "no, it's not" Thomas Bushnell "yes, it is" Jim Penny 16kB worth of "no, it's not" Steve Langasek rebuts Jim on an offtopic point Jim Penny recalls an old argument of Manoj's; still offtopic Thomas Bushnell pleads for thread move to -legal Jim Penny "no" Thread dies. I see no consensus one way or the other, but I did not see a single person defend the license as DFSG-free as written. There were a couple of people, notably Jim Penny, who were quite loud about their feelings that it didn't matter that the license was non-free, standards documents deserve to be in main regardless. Whether we should consciously flout Social Contract clause 1 is a separate question. I challenge you guys's interpretation of the historical record. I see nothing strong enough to be called "consensus" either way. I see no case made by anyone for the UnicodeData.txt license as (in the form it was in at the time -- for all I know it's been changed since then) DFSG-free. It distresses me that two people got this so ass-backwards. -- G. Branden Robinson | I am only good at complaining. Debian GNU/Linux | You don't want me near your code. [EMAIL PROTECTED] | -- Dan Jacobson http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |
pgpbOmeGkW0CS.pgp
Description: PGP signature
