Hi,
>>"Marcus" == Marcus Brinkmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Marcus> On Sat, Aug 15, 1998 at 11:13:35AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
compromise. It is a better delinieation of the
>> issue. I think things are not just black or white; and the verbatim
>> section recognizes that fact. I think that the FSSTND is actually
>> beneficial to Linux; and QT is not. Lumping them together is highly
>> suboptimal.
Marcus> I don't buy this. The Java kit is also beneficial to Linux,
Marcus> although it is even more non-free than Qt. Pgp was
Marcus> beneficial. Just because something is beneficial we don't
Marcus> have to try to push it into Debian. I'm perfectly happy with
Marcus> a beneficial non-free component, either software or document,
Marcus> in non-free.
Well, I don't buy the beneficial argument for the GPL either,
then.
Marcus> Things are not black and white in the software world,
Marcus> too. nevertheless Debian has a clear definition, and
Marcus> everything that fails is in non-free, regrdless of the reason
Marcus> it fails. I like this.
True. :et us then, have one standrd. Not one for the GPL, and
one for everything else.
>> Sorry. The same reasoning applies to the FSSTND. I know of no
>> standard out there that would be allowed in main; that should be
>> enough reason too.
Marcus> Huh? We can stop to ship the FSSTND in main. This is no
Marcus> reason to stop following the FSSTND. We also try to follow
Marcus> POSIX, although I've never seen a copy of it.
I think it is a bad decision to stop shipping the FSSTND in main.
>> We should not flip-flop from a high moral ground and accept
>> anything pragmatism based on what document we look at.
Marcus> I see the "verbatim" section as a pragmatism.
I think we differ here. There is a difference, in my mind,
between documents that are non-modifiable (and there are lots of
categories we have not considered that fit there as well -- opinions,
stories, magazines, etc) and propreitery software. Verbatim is merely
recognizing the difference.
Including the GPL is pragmatism.
>> Ship the GPL in verbatim, which is a part of debian.
Marcus> We have not agreed on this. It was exactly my proposal, to
Marcus> allow some very special and well defined exceptions in
Marcus> main. This would make the verbatim section unnecessary from
Marcus> my point of view.
No. Main should be sources that everyone may modify with
impunity. I think it is about time we took a stand on midifieability,
and created a verbatim section.
>> We can
>> still ship stuff. As you say later, either we take a stance on non
>> modifiable documents, or we don't. Putting them in verbatim seems the
>> best solution practically.
Marcus> And I say we should allow some exceptions, but generally hold
Marcus> the line.
That is a contradiction in terms.
Marcus> Furthermore I say that license documents are a valid
Marcus> exception.
And I say it is not. Licenses have copyrights, just as
standards do. Licences can too be put under rename if changed
clauses.
>> We can say that an immutable document, bundled with software,
>> does not prevent the inclusion of the software in main. (Software
>> programs can nver go in verbatim). So, packages can happily include
>> the GPL with no changes. But a stand alone package, (say, containing
>> /usr/doc/copyright/GPL), should go in verbatim.
Marcus> This assumes that the verbatim section is part of main,
No, this assumes verbatim is part of Debian.
free enough for our purpose. See again below.
Marcus> 2) Legal reason
>>
Marcus> No copyright can restrict you on what license you choose to
Marcus> put your work
>>
>> No copyright can restrict you on whatever standard your code
>> chooses to follow.
Marcus> Huh? What has this to do with this discussion?
What does your statement have to do with the discussion?
Marcus> My point was that I can use legal terms of existing licenses
Marcus> to write my own license. I can't use existing standards to
Marcus> write my own standard (verbatim), so your analogy does not
Marcus> hold.
You cannot make verbatim copies of copyrighted
material. Licenses are copyrighted.
Marcus> under. This means, whatever license I write, I don't violate
Marcus> a copyright.
>>
>> Not true in the united states.
Marcus> Here you are wrong, and therefore I snipped the rest of your
Marcus> reply (it was essentially a repetition of the above
Marcus> statement). Didn't you read the mail from RMS:
I am not wrong. You are misinterpreting what RMS says. Ask him
specifically if I can copy the GPL verbatim, and just change one
word. Go ahead. And come back and tell us what he said.
Marcus> RMS:
Marcus> "Yes and no. There is a legal principle (in the US at least) that
Marcus> copyright cannot restrict what license terms you use. So
Marcus> if you want a license which has legal wording somewhat
Marcus> similar to the GNU GPL, but somewhat different, you can
Marcus> write one."
In other words, you cannot make cerbatim copies of the GPL,
but you can write another license which achieves similar goals.
I can write a standard that kinda does the same as the FSSTND,
as long as I don't quote verbatim. Same thing. Licenses and
srtandards are exactly the same.
Under the law, just because POSIX says something, they cannon
restrict my own standard from imposing the same restriction. Just
like RMS said.
Marcus> So, a GPL with a "free" copyright would gain you nothing, as
Marcus> you'd have to remove the preambel anyway. The legal text is
Marcus> not the problem, as you can always copy from it. If you argue
Marcus> with fair use, or with the above legal principle, I don't
Marcus> care.
You are mistaken. You have not read what RMS said correctly.
Marcus> [many things snipped]
>> Precisely. But ``common'' laws are fairly uncommon, and change
>> from country to country. Stick to the letter of the document,
>> the spirit is different over here.
Marcus> This will not bring us any further. We should always consider
Marcus> common sense, too. For example, fair use is always allowed,
Marcus> it does not have to be stated explicitely in the copyright.
Fair use means only copying a reasonably small portion of the
document for *personal* use, or as excerpts in something that talks
about the document. Fair use does not condone plagiarism.
No, the license and standrds are not distinct, at least under
the laws of the united states.
manoj
--
Trust everybody, but cut the cards. Finlay Peter Dunne, "Mr. Dooley's
Philosophy"
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.datasync.com/%7Esrivasta/>
Key C7261095 fingerprint = CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
