On Tue, 13 May 2003 23:40:52 +0200
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jérôme Marant) wrote:
> > How about all the various non-GFDL-licensed documentation? There
> > certainly is a lot of it, and much of it is Free. Take a look at the
> > LDP.
> >
> > And assuming that what drives people to write Free Software is
>
On Tue, 13 May 2003 23:35:10 +0200
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jérôme Marant) wrote:
> Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > So does this mean I can include my shareware fonts and my
> > for-educational-use-only documentation in my next package upload?
> > The software is free, so I guess it's
On Tue, 13 May 2003 23:52:20 +0200
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jérôme Marant) wrote:
> It is relevant because RMS is Emacs's project leader, so he is
> this upstream we have to bargain with, isn't he?
It is not relevant to the question, "is Emacs documentation Free?"
That's entirely based on the licens
On Tue, May 13, 2003 at 11:35:10PM +0200, Jérôme Marant wrote:
> > So does this mean I can include my shareware fonts and my
> > for-educational-use-only documentation in my next package upload? The
> > software is free, so I guess it's ok to let these other things into main
> > along with it --
Le mar 13/05/2003 à 23:37, Jérôme Marant a écrit :
> > I'd suggest that the old version go in main, and that the new version go
> > in non-free. The non-free more uptodate one could be setup to supersede
> > the older free one once installed (if the content is at all different,
> > otherwise don't
Le mar 13/05/2003 à 23:35, Jérôme Marant a écrit :
> It seems obvious to you that documentation is software. It is not
> to me. Simply.
Documentation is certainly not software, but I fail to see why we should
treat it differently.
A documentation which cannot be modified is not free, and the f
David B Harris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Again, you do consider DFSG applies to documentation. If so, I agree
>> with you. But I'm personaly not convinced (yet) it should be.
>
> Playing the devil's advocate here, let's pretend that "legally" it
> doesn't. You still think we should include o
David B Harris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> I'm still waiting for one.
>
> How about all the various non-GFDL-licensed documentation? There
> certainly is a lot of it, and much of it is Free. Take a look at the
> LDP.
>
> And assuming that what drives people to write Free Software is different
Peter S Galbraith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'd suggest that the old version go in main, and that the new version go
> in non-free. The non-free more uptodate one could be setup to supersede
> the older free one once installed (if the content is at all different,
> otherwise don't bother wit
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> So does this mean I can include my shareware fonts and my
> for-educational-use-only documentation in my next package upload? The
> software is free, so I guess it's ok to let these other things into main
> along with it -- right?
It seems obvious t
Mark Rafn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Jerome, some of the responses you've gotten have been dismissive of your
> opinion, and a lot of this is normal debian-legal style. I hope you don't
> take it too personally.
Thanks for considering my opinions. I don't think they counts here for
a fu
Branden Robinson wrote:
>4. The location of the original unmodified document be
> identified.
>
> BUG: Walter Landry has pointed out:
>
> "[The GNU FDL] requires me to preserve the network location of where
> Transparent versions can be found for four years. Even if
On Tue, 13 May 2003 22:33:38 +0200
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jérôme Marant) wrote:
> > You're asking us to keep non-Free documentation in main. The
> > difference between that and asking to "include components in main"
> > is irrelevant and a lawyer's point.
>
> Again, you do consider DFSG applies to doc
On Tue, 13 May 2003 22:26:32 +0200
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jérôme Marant) wrote:
> > Agreed. I doubt anyone will be motivated enough to write a
> > Free typesetting application ... oh, wait.
> >
> > I doubt anyone will be motivated enough to write a robust set of
> > graphics drivers for *nix ... oh, wa
Jerome, some of the responses you've gotten have been dismissive of your
opinion, and a lot of this is normal debian-legal style. I hope you don't
take it too personally.
I would like to understand your position better. I'm pretty sure I don't
agree with you, but it's not clear exactly what y
Peter S Galbraith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Jérôme Marant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> >He believes his invariant sections are an important soapbox for his free
>> >software philosophies. In an apparent contradiction, he feels it's a
>> >small price to pay if that makes the documentation no
David B Harris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> I'm not asking Debian to include components in main. Those components
>> are already in main. I'm asking to keep in main GNU documentations.
>
> You're asking us to keep non-Free documentation in main. The difference
> between that and asking to "inc
David B Harris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> (Incidentally, copyright licenses are always considered "invariant" :)
Yes, I was about to mention copyright licenses
> Agreed. I doubt anyone will be motivated enough to write a
> Free typesetting application ... oh, wait.
>
> I doubt anyone will be
David B Harris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, 13 May 2003 09:52:16 +0200 (CEST)
> Jérôme Marant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I'm talking about documentation which comes with free software from
>> GNU. You deliberately removed the last part of my message, and that's
>> make your reply even
On Tue, 13 May 2003 20:38:51 +0200
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jérôme Marant) wrote:
> Could we consider some invariant sections as "non-problematic"?
Invariant sections aren't the only part of the license that's
problematic, they're just the most obscene. So far, I've seen them used
in a way that I found
On Tue, 13 May 2003 09:45:57 +0200 (CEST)
Jérôme Marant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> En réponse à David B Harris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> > > As long as I am a GNU Emacs user, I object to see the Emacs manual
> > > going to non-free. Currently, it is provided by the emacs package
> > > and I'm abl
* Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [030512 22:50]:
> > Natural is a quite common description for something seen as so
> > evident, that it needs no justification. So one can argue, if it
> > is a natural right, but after I saw people pretending a right to
> > own weapons this one is not funny at
On Tue, 13 May 2003 09:52:16 +0200 (CEST)
Jérôme Marant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm talking about documentation which comes with free software from
> GNU. You deliberately removed the last part of my message, and that's
> make your reply even more trollish.
Frankly, the second part of your me
Jérôme Marant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >He believes his invariant sections are an important soapbox for his free
> >software philosophies. In an apparent contradiction, he feels it's a
> >small price to pay if that makes the documentation non-free.
>
> Could we consider some invariant section
Peter S Galbraith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
>Jérôme Marant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> En réponse à MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>
>> > =?iso-8859-15?q?J=E9r=F4me?= Marant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > > As long as I am a GNU Emacs user, I object to see the Emacs manual
>> > > going to non
Arnoud Galactus Engelfriet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Peter S Galbraith wrote:
> > Arnoud Galactus Engelfriet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > People will think you made the silly modifications, and so
> > > your reputation is harmed. I am not required by law to say
> > > I modified the work if
Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
> Arnoud Galactus Engelfriet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > So what you do to works I created could harm my reputation.
>
> I could make a silly modificaton to your painting and avoid mentioning
> that you created the original. This wouldn't harm your reputation.
Possible, u
Peter S Galbraith wrote:
> Arnoud Galactus Engelfriet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > People will think you made the silly modifications, and so
> > your reputation is harmed. I am not required by law to say
> > I modified the work if I bought the copyright from you.
>
> Okay. But in the case of f
Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
> On Mon, May 12, 2003 at 07:47:12PM +0200,
> Arnoud Galactus Engelfriet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
> a message of 14 lines which said:
> > Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
> > > As I already explained several days ago, the right to prevent
> > > modifications does NOT exist
Arnoud Galactus Engelfriet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> So what you do to works I created could harm my reputation.
I could make a silly modificaton to your painting and avoid mentioning
that you created the original. This wouldn't harm your reputation.
Alternatively I could create a totally original
On Tue, May 13, 2003 at 09:35:11AM -0400, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
> Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, May 12, 2003 at 02:22:06PM -0400, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
> > > I agree with all your points. I think we should move forward moving
> > > those docs to non-free. It'll
Arnoud Galactus Engelfriet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Peter S Galbraith wrote:
> > Arnoud Galactus Engelfriet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > If I transfer my copyright, I can not stop you from harming
> > > my reputation. That's why the law has the extra provision that
> > > helps me protect
Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Mon, May 12, 2003 at 07:45:51PM +0200, Arnoud Galactus Engelfriet wrote:
> > The motivation for making them unrevokable is to prevent
> > authors from being forced to accept unconditional surrender
> > of their works. Then they could be made to look like total
>
> So the
Peter S Galbraith wrote:
> Arnoud Galactus Engelfriet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > If I transfer my copyright, I can not stop you from harming
> > my reputation. That's why the law has the extra provision that
> > helps me protect my moral rights.
>
> If I transfer my copyright to you, you can'
Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Mon, May 12, 2003 at 07:45:51PM +0200, Arnoud Galactus Engelfriet wrote:
> > If I transfer my copyright, I can not stop you from harming
> > my reputation.
>
> No? What can the new copyright holder do to harm your reputation that
> you aren't protected from under other
On Tue, May 13, 2003 at 01:48:47AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Mon, May 12, 2003 at 01:12:10PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > There are already libel and slander laws to prevent damaging a
> > person's reputation through falsehoods.
> In the U.K., truth is not a defense to libel. It's m
Jérôme Marant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> En réponse à MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> > =?iso-8859-15?q?J=E9r=F4me?= Marant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > As long as I am a GNU Emacs user, I object to see the Emacs manual
> > > going to non-free. Currently, it is provided by the emacs package
On Mon, May 12, 2003 at 07:47:12PM +0200,
Arnoud Galactus Engelfriet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
a message of 14 lines which said:
> Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
> > As I already explained several days ago, the right to prevent
> > modifications does NOT exist for SOFTWARE. Author's rights on SOFTW
En réponse à Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > I'm talking about documentation which comes with free software from
> > GNU.
>
> Apparently the fact that the documentation "comes with free software"
> does not imply that the documentation *itself* is free. In actuality
Of course.
> the do
Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Scripsit MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > It is a shame that debian-legal seems to be the largest visible group
> > getting indigestion from this problem. The argument that we should aid
> > unfree book producers seems as reasonable as the argument tha
On Tue, May 13, 2003 at 09:52:16AM +0200, Jérôme Marant wrote:
> En réponse à James Troup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jérôme Marant) writes:
> >
> > > As long as I am a GNU Emacs user, I object to see the Emacs manual
> > > going to non-free. Currently, it is provided by the ema
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, May 12, 2003 at 02:22:06PM -0400, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
> > I agree with all your points. I think we should move forward moving
> > those docs to non-free. It'll mean a few packages from non-free on my
> > systems, but if that's what RMS w
Scripsit MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> It is a shame that debian-legal seems to be the largest visible group
> getting indigestion from this problem. The argument that we should aid
> unfree book producers seems as reasonable as the argument that we should
> offer concessions to unfree software pro
Scripsit Jérôme Marant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> En réponse à James Troup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > Wow! You're so right! Let's get rid of this silly DFSG thing and move
> > all software to main, it'd be so much more convenient from a user
> > point of view!! Yeesh.
> I'm talking about documentation
Scripsit Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Tue, May 13, 2003 at 06:46:31AM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > Digging in the archives turns up that it has not always been you who
> > made the false claim that GPL+more restrictions is necessarily
> > internally inconsistent. I apologize for
=?ISO-8859-1?Q?J=E9r=F4me_Marant?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> En réponse à MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> You are complaining to the wrong people, I think. Fix the licence,
>> not the social contract.
> After reading RMS's reply, it seems not really possible to me.
I think that is the conclusio
Dylan Thurston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Whatever you may think of the specific merits of the droit d'auteur
> system, please bear in mind that every legal system gives you rights
> you cannot barter away. For instance, no modern legal system lets you
> sell yourself into slavery, and I think that t
Thomas Uwe Gruettmueller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> So the problem here is that the source code of sample data is
> more sample data. These samples might again require their
> sources, and so the resulting tree could be enormous.
When distributing the source, you don't have to distribute the whole
En réponse à MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> =?iso-8859-15?q?J=E9r=F4me?= Marant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > As long as I am a GNU Emacs user, I object to see the Emacs manual
> > going to non-free. Currently, it is provided by the emacs package
>
> You are complaining to the wrong people, I thi
En réponse à James Troup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jérôme Marant) writes:
>
> > As long as I am a GNU Emacs user, I object to see the Emacs manual
> > going to non-free. Currently, it is provided by the emacs package
> > and I'm able to read it from emacs itself as soon as the pac
En réponse à David B Harris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > As long as I am a GNU Emacs user, I object to see the Emacs manual
> > going to non-free. Currently, it is provided by the emacs package
> > and I'm able to read it from emacs itself as soon as the package
> > is installed.
> > So, from the user
On Mon, May 12, 2003 at 02:50:28PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> That's ludicrous. Rights are not preserved by revoking other rights.
Sure they are. My right to breathe clean air, drink clean water, not be
bathed in gamma radiation, etc., is preserved by revoking the rights of
U.S. corporations
On Mon, May 12, 2003 at 01:12:10PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
> There are already libel and slander laws to prevent damaging a
> person's reputation through falsehoods.
In the U.K., truth is not a defense to libel. It's my understanding
that it *is* a defense in the U.S.
So, when an American s
On Mon, May 12, 2003 at 09:05:59AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Marcel Duchamp, is he no longer the hero of French artists?
Given that our French participants keep ignoring this question from you,
I guess the answer is "yes, he is no longer the hero of French artists".
Perhaps he has been
Colin Watson helpfully provided this information in a recent mail:
"The default LDP licence (one which many documents use explicitly and
which it's been agreed applies to any documents which don't specify a
licence) is a little longer but still quite reasonable, and is also more
or less a copyleft
=?iso-8859-15?q?J=E9r=F4me?= Marant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> As long as I am a GNU Emacs user, I object to see the Emacs manual
> going to non-free. Currently, it is provided by the emacs package
You are complaining to the wrong people, I think. Fix the licence,
not the social contract.
MJR
On Mon, 12 May 2003 14:50:28 -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Mon, May 12, 2003 at 07:45:51PM +0200, Arnoud Galactus Engelfriet wrote:
> > The motivation for making them unrevokable is to prevent
> > authors from being forced to accept unconditional surrender
> > of their works. Then they could be
On Tue, May 13, 2003 at 12:57:12AM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
> Ugh. That would hit about 25% of currently free HOWTOs and mini-HOWTOs
> (114 for 1.1 and 8 for 1.2 at the moment, to be exact), as a previous
> collection editor, who in fact is a Debian user and was the person who
> brought the non-f
On Tue, May 13, 2003 at 06:46:31AM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Scripsit Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > If you don't share my position, that's fine, but you haven't yet
> > articulated why.
>
> I have. Multiple times. Someone using your name and imitating your
> style of writing ra
On Mon, May 12, 2003 at 02:22:06PM -0400, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
> I agree with all your points. I think we should move forward moving
> those docs to non-free. It'll mean a few packages from non-free on my
> systems, but if that's what RMS wants it's not a huge deal for me as
> long as they ar
60 matches
Mail list logo
