Re: Inconsistencies in our approach

On Thu, 7 Aug 2003, John Goerzen wrote: JG>Documentation consists of instructions primarily intended to be JG>human-readable regarding the operation of something such as a program. JG>Programs consist of instructions primarily intended to be machine-readable JG>that either contain machine languag

Re: Inconsistencies in our approach

In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Nathanael Nerode wrote: > OK. How about a GR saying "We will not accept anything non-free in > main, except for the preamble of the GPL. ..." >... > I bet a lot of people would be satisfied by the following more general > statement as a GR. This seems to correspo

Re: A possible approach in "solving" the FDL problem

MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb/wrote: > Please substantiate this. UK law explicitly says that computer programs > are literary works with the exception that moral rights do not subsist. It is common to define coputer programs as literary works. This is done in order to get them covered by the

Re: APSL 2.0

Jeremy Hankins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >>> Even there, I think it's hard to claim that Joe is using the >>> "Covered Code, alone or as part of a Larger Work, in any way to >>> provide a service." >> >> This confuses me. How can you not say, when Joe's using the covered >> code to perform ty

Re: APSL 2.0

Mark Rafn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Fri, 8 Aug 2003, Jeremy Hankins wrote: >> In the case of the DPSL that's not obvious, since they seem to want to >> include restrictions on performance. > > This is interesting, and AFAIK the first license Debian has > considered which makes such a claim

Re: Inconsistencies in our approach

Nathanael Nerode said: > "Adapt it to your needs" is violated by the FDL "Invariant Section" > requirements. Notably, the 'embedded' and 'reference card' examples > apply (although RMS espoused a interesting theory involving "multiple > volumes"). A (IMHO) stronger example would be creating a "Ho

Re: Inconsistencies in our approach

John Goerzen wrote: > On Fri, Aug 08, 2003 at 02:16:39AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote: > > Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote: > > > > >Documentation and some other kinds of data can be used without computer. > > >Documentation can be printed and sold as books. One does not need a > > >computer to read

Re: APSL 2.0

> Mark Rafn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Ok, so as long as someone presses a button as part of the process, this > > requirement doesn't kick in? Does this mean moderated lists are > > exempt and unmoderated ones would have to provide source and configuration > > to all users? On Fri, 8 A

Re: Inconsistencies in our approach

On Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 07:46:19PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote: > > > There is neither source code nor compiled code for my King James Bible in > > > free-form ASCII text. > > > > This is an example of why they are guidelines, not rules. It is simple > > for an intelligent person to interpret this i

Re: Inconsistencies in our approach

On Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 10:07:07PM -0500, Lynn Winebarger wrote: > Andrew Suffield wrote: > >We have not, to date, had any difficulty in interpreting the DFSG as > >applied to documentation, excluding the lunatic fringe who appear, > >stick their oar in, and cease to send mail when somebody points

Re: Inconsistencies in our approach

John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Sun, Aug 03, 2003 at 05:12:55PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote: >> John Goerzen wrote: >> > 1. Would removing the manual for Emacs, libc, or other important GNU >> >software benefit our users? >> Yep. I'm very unhappy with having non-free software

Re: A possible approach in 'solving' the FDL problem

Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 09:22:25PM -0400, Brian T. Sniffen wrote: >> Said Wouter: >> >> > In fact, if the debian-legal group were to decide all by itself that >> >> > software and documentation are essentially the same thing, I'm >> >> > afraid a fork

Re: semi-OT: does SPI have cause of action against SCO?

(Sorry if threading breaks; I'm replying to the web archve) Steve Langasek wrote: >It seems likely to me that SPI has similar cause to request declaratory >judgement; although Debian GNU/Linux has not been explicitly named as >an infringing product, SCO has claimed that the Linux kernel is >infr

Re: APSL 2.0

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Nathanael Nerode) writes: > Restrictions on use are contrary to the FSF's four freedoms #0. I think > use restrctions are a *very* reasonable thing to prohibit given that > "Debian will remain 100% Free Software". Not at all: Freedom 0: The freedom to run the program, for a

Re: APSL 2.0

Mark Rafn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Thu, 7 Aug 2003, Jeremy Hankins wrote: >> Email isn't entirely electronic unless it's also automatic. If you >> type in the message and send it, there's a decidedly non-electronic >> (well, non-digital) element: you. > > Ok, so as long as someone presses

Re: Inconsistencies in our approach

On Fri, Aug 08, 2003 at 09:53:28AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > On Fri, Aug 08, 2003 at 04:01:59AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote: > > (Now, I'm not going to claim that there are no good reasons for > > documentation being under licenses that wouldn't pass the DSFG - I > > haven't really made up m

gif-creating applications?

Hi what's the legal status of inclusion of gif-creating applications in debian? Is it ok to include it in main, contrib or non-free? http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/gif.html says that the latest patent expiry is 7 July 2004, but Unisys seems to have given parts of their patent free (but only for non

Re: APSL 2.0

Anthony DeRobertis wrote: > On Thursday, Aug 7, 2003, at 11:20 US/Eastern, Bernhard R. Link wrote: > >(And while the lawyers seem currently struggling here in > >Germany if usage of a program is copying to RAM and thus limited > >by copyright law or not, I just handle immoral things as void). > >

EBCDIC (WAS: Re: a minimal copyleft)

Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > EBCDIC is not a subset of ASCII, I'm pretty sure. Any translation is > > going to be lossy. > > IIRC, aside from the control codes (which are virtually unused anyway, > and thusly not an issue) it is. If you look at the top left-hand corner of a British

Re: APSL 2.0

>> It's a restriction on use (per definition 1.4 section b). DFSG has >> no explicit item that use of the software must not be restricted, >> but any use restriction completely breaks users' trust of the >> freeness of Debian. > >This seems like a very difficult argument to know when to make. Do

Re: Inconsistencies in our approach

>> Can I take this, then, as an admission that we willfully distribute >non-free >> software in main, and intend to continue doing so, because we >perceive >a >> lack of alternatives? (In the form of, for instance, public domain >> software) > >I should have put "software" in quotes, because I

Re: APSL 2.0

On Thu, 7 Aug 2003, Jeremy Hankins wrote: > > On Thu, 7 Aug 2003, Jeremy Hankins wrote: > Email isn't entirely electronic unless it's also automatic. If you > type in the message and send it, there's a decidedly non-electronic > (well, non-digital) element: you. Ok, so as long as someone presses

Re: Inconsistencies in our approach

John Goerzen wrote: >Secondly, there are pending court cases right now in the U.S. alleging >copyright violations from legal papers filed in court cases. Ugh. These people should be thrown out of court. Or perhaps just shot out of hand. ;-) If they actually win, Debian *will* have to be *very*

Re: A possible approach in 'solving' the FDL problem

On Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 09:22:25PM -0400, Brian T. Sniffen wrote: > Said Wouter: > >> > In fact, if the debian-legal group were to decide all by itself that > >> > software and documentation are essentially the same thing, I'm > >> > afraid a fork would be much more likely. > >> > >> It is not the

Re: Inconsistencies in our approach

Brian T. Sniffen wrote: >> Not quite. I *do* think Debian should remove the GPL's >> Invariant-but-removable Preamble, distributing only the legal text. >> The FSF says >> , but since >> the requirement for future distribution is only "unde

Re: A possible approach in "solving" the FDL problem

On Fri, Aug 08, 2003 at 12:11:41AM -, MJ Ray wrote: > Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 11:26:49PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote: > >> Even if we end up with a different definition (which is unlikely as the > >> DFSG are simple and can be applied to document