Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Joe Drew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Don Armstrong wrote:
> > > 1: Of course, you do hear about rather rediculous [sic] judgements from
> > > time to time. That's because there are quite a few moronic lower court
> > > judges out there. Most of those
Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The DFSG lists three specific licenses that are meant to satisfy its
> criteria. Nowadays some Debian developers tend to say that these
> three licenses are listed as exceptions to the rules of the DFSG, but
> I think that is a misinterpretation. I
Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> In that sense, there is nothing but software in Debian.
>
> But Debian contains essays, logos, and licenses that cannot be
> modified. These are not programs; are they software?
The essays and logos in question are in fact not part of Debian.
Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> That's one way to interpret it, but I don't think it is the best way.
> The DFSG is written as if the system consists entirely of programs and
> contains nothing else. But there surely was never an intention to
> develop a system that didn't have man
[RMS not CCed]
On Sat, Sep 20, 2003 at 05:27:14PM -0400, Richard Stallman wrote:
> > Manuals are not free software, because they are not software.
> > The DFSG very clearly treats "software" and "programs" as
> > synonymous.
>
> In that case, the DFSG prohibits their distribution
On Sat, Sep 20, 2003 at 07:15:24PM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
> On Saturday 20 September 2003 18:47, Mathieu Roy wrote:
> > And you are sure that this phrase is part of an Invariant section?
> > And you are sure that this phrase is part of an Invariant section?
>
> Mathieu, are you too lazy to find
Hi,
On Sat, Sep 20, 2003 at 12:09:18AM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
>
> My memory is very foggy, but IIRC Id's releases of source tend to be a
> dump of some old snapshot of their source made some time ago, and then
> they'll slap a GPL file in the toplevel directory. The intent is to
> relicense it,
Richard Stallman wrote:
Remember the hypothetical "emacs reference card", which must be
accompanied by 12 pages of additional invariant material? Sounds like a
big deal to me.
If the GPL were used, it would have to be accompanied by 6 pages
of additional invariant material.
T
Richard Stallman wrote:
Yes. "Debian will remain 100% free software". That's the first line of the
Debian Social Contract. This means that everything in Debian must be free
*software*.
That is one possible interpretation, but since it is based on
asserting that manuals, essays,
Joe Drew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Don Armstrong wrote:
> > 1: Of course, you do hear about rather rediculous [sic] judgements from
> > time to time. That's because there are quite a few moronic lower court
> > judges out there. Most of those settlements (the Mc-D's coffee one for
> > instance)
On Sat, 20 Sep 2003, Andreas Barth wrote:
> In this case she did "swim" in it, see also
> http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm (which describes that case
> IMHO much better).
Thanks for the link. That should remind me to check anectdotes out
slightly more carefully.
Don Armstrong
--
Sentence
Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> If you are willing to disregard the meaning of some of the words in
> the DFSG in order to reinterpret it, there is more than one way to do
> so.
The US constitution means what the Supreme Court says it means.
Likewise, the DFSG means what Debian d
On Sat, 20 Sep 2003, Richard Stallman wrote:
> If the GPL were used, it would have to be accompanied by 6 pages
> of additional invariant material. That is still bigger than the
> reference card. Do you object to the GPL on these grounds?
There's a critical difference here. The GPL can accompany
On Sat, 20 Sep 2003, Richard Stallman wrote:
> The words of the social contract clearly equate software to programs.
Only Social Contract #5 even mentions programs, and that particular
tenent of the social contract is one that will likely be removed (or
at least an attempt made to remove) via GR i
Richard Stallman wrote:
>The Social contract uses the "that which is not hardware" definition of
>software.
>
>The words of the social contract clearly equate software to programs.
I disagree about this interpretation, which suggests that your
interpretation certainly isn't clear.
> I
Remember the hypothetical "emacs reference card", which must be
accompanied by 12 pages of additional invariant material? Sounds like a
big deal to me.
If the GPL were used, it would have to be accompanied by 6 pages
of additional invariant material. That is still bigger than the
The "document" consists of both packages. The fact that users are not
obligated to download both at the same time is irrelevant, just as it is
irrelevant to the GPL that users can choose to download binaries without
source; and just as it is irrelevant that users can choose to d
> Manuals are not free software, because they are not software.
> The DFSG very clearly treats "software" and "programs" as
> synonymous.
In that case, the DFSG prohibits their distribution outright.
That's one way to interpret it, but I don't think it is the best way.
The DFSG is
The Social contract uses the "that which is not hardware" definition of
software.
The words of the social contract clearly equate software to programs.
In that sense, there is nothing but software in Debian.
But Debian contains essays, logos, and licenses that cannot be
modified. T
Richard, for the sake of my blood pressure, please read
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200308/msg00690.html
(bis repetita)
When you first told me about the page, you seemed to be criticizing me
for taking o long to read it. How I could have done what you asked
* Don Armstrong ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030920 21:50]:
> On Sat, 20 Sep 2003, Joe Drew wrote:
> > Contrary to popular belief, the McDonald's coffee case was not
> > frivolous.
> >
> > http://www.centerjd.org/free/mythbusters-free/MB_mcdonalds.htm
> First off, hot coffee causes 2nd degree burns, not
Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> First off, hot coffee causes 2nd degree burns, not 3rd degree
> burns.[1]
Ordinary temperature coffee does indeed cause 2nd degree burns. This
is not true however for coffee served at 180 degrees Farenheit.
> Secondly, the punitive award by the jury o
Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I've decided not to do that. The development of GNU licenses is not a
> > Debian issue.
>
> Neither is the inclusion of GNU manuals in Debian a FSF issue.
>
> That's what I said--at least twice in the past week.
But you want to be pa
Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Thanks for mentioning that message to me; nobody had mentioned to me
> before (at least since the start of 2003). It is a message from Bruce
> Perens, suggesting that the DFSG should be taken to mean something
> quite contrary to what it actually say
Whoa. Digging around in the archives are we?
On Sat, 20 Sep 2003, Joe Drew wrote:
> Don Armstrong wrote:
>>1: Of course, you do hear about rather rediculous [sic] judgements
>>from time to time. That's because there are quite a few moronic lower
>>court judges out there. Most of those settlements
Richard Braakman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a tapoté :
> On Sat, Sep 20, 2003 at 06:47:31PM +0200, Mathieu Roy wrote:
>
> > > When you look at which kind of text IS marked invariant in the manuals
> > > under discussion, you'll find that the FSF has a much broader idea of
> > > Secondary Sections than th
On Sat, Sep 20, 2003 at 06:47:31PM +0200, Mathieu Roy wrote:
> And you are sure that this phrase is part of an Invariant section?
Yes. (2x)
> > When you look at which kind of text IS marked invariant in the manuals
> > under discussion, you'll find that the FSF has a much broader idea of
> > Seco
Concern has been expressed on the debian-devel list about license status of
PennMUSH and its legitimacy. PennMUSH was relicensed under the Artistic
License as of version 1.7.6p0 in November 2002. Aspects of PennMUSH's code
have been drawn from, of course, it's TinyMUD roots as well as its 'sibli
Don Armstrong wrote:
1: Of course, you do hear about rather rediculous [sic] judgements from
time to time. That's because there are quite a few moronic lower court
judges out there. Most of those settlements (the Mc-D's coffee one for
instance) are often overturned or reduced in the appeals proce
On Saturday 20 September 2003 18:47, Mathieu Roy wrote:
> And you are sure that this phrase is part of an Invariant section?
> And you are sure that this phrase is part of an Invariant section?
Mathieu, are you too lazy to find by yourself that both sentences appear in
the "Distribution" section
Richard Braakman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a tapoté :
> On Fri, Sep 19, 2003 at 11:06:34PM +0200, Mathieu Roy wrote:
> > The GNU Documentation under discussion _is_ in the category of
> > political/philosophical/historical texts. Only these texts can be
> > invariant in the GFDL.
>
> Could you explain
On Sat, Sep 20, 2003 at 04:42:51PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > I don't think the GFDL is a good place to start from when writing a
> > documentation license, really. The WDL is a tangled mess. Start with
> > the GPL instead, and try to answer this question:
> >
> > What do I want that this l
Joey Hess wrote:
My memory is very foggy, but IIRC Id's releases of source tend to be a
dump of some old snapshot of their source made some time ago, and then
they'll slap a GPL file in the toplevel directory. The intent is to
relicense it, but it leads to some confusing trees. They may have not
On Sat, Sep 20, 2003 at 04:42:51PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> There's nothing which is not in the GPL that I don't want.
Uh. Obviously I meant "there's nothing in the GPL that I would want"
--
Wouter Verhelst
Debian GNU/Linux -- http://www.debian.org
Nederlandstalige Linux-documentatie -- h
I didn't reply to this yet, but I should've; I thought I had.
On Wed, Sep 17, 2003 at 02:22:11AM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
[WDL]
> I'm not yet convinced as to whether it's DFSG-free or not, but if I
> had to make a spot decision right now, I'd say not.
That's why I requested feedback. As long
Ryan Underwood wrote:
> I am trying to get my improved fork of the icculus Wolf3d ready for
> release. There are tons of new features, but I am unclear on the
> license.
>
> The original license supplied with the wolf3d sources (released in 1995)
> seems to be the same license that the proprietar
On 2003-09-20 13:42:31 +0100 Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
least) is that the Debian Project could end up being better friends
with
the Open Source Initiative than with the FSF;
That truly would be a worst case while OSI ignore free software issues
and welcome software pate
On Fri, Sep 19, 2003 at 09:46:22PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 19, 2003 at 08:53:47PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> > Josselin Mouette wrote:
> > >True, but the swirl logo fails the DFSG as well, as you can only use it
> > >to refer to the project, and it doesn't allow explicitly
Op za 20-09-2003, om 09:50 schreef Richard Stallman:
> At the start of the GNU Project, I was in a similar situation. When I
> wrestled with the question of whether TeX was free software, I did not
> owe Donald Knuth any special consideration, but I did want to use TeX
> in the GNU system. The mo
On Sat, Sep 20, 2003 at 12:22:59PM +0900, Fedor Zuev wrote:
> Discussion, AFAIK, was not about fair use in general (which
> is very vague concept and yes, in this vague form exists only in US
> and, maybe, China), but exactly about quotation of small strings
> from manual in help strings, men
On Fri, Sep 19, 2003 at 11:06:34PM +0200, Mathieu Roy wrote:
> The GNU Documentation under discussion _is_ in the category of
> political/philosophical/historical texts. Only these texts can be
> invariant in the GFDL.
Could you explain in what way the Distribution section of the emacs manual
is a
On Saturday 20 September 2003 09:50, Richard Stallman wrote:
> > Manuals are not free software, because they are not software.
> > The DFSG very clearly treats "software" and "programs" as
> > synonymous.
>
> Richard, once and for all, please read
>
> http://lists.debian.org/deb
On Saturday 20 September 2003 11:08, Mathieu Roy wrote:
> Mike Hommey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a tapoté :
> > On Saturday 20 September 2003 02:16, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> > > You seem to be suggesting that this would satisfy the distribution
> > > terms of the GFDL. Are you really suggesting this? I
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi,
On Friday 19 September 2003 23:57, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
> Mathieu Roy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > And, finally, if I correctly understood this page, if I get an
> > official Debian CD, with this Logo as cover, I'm not able to provide
> > a
On 2003-09-20 08:50:21 +0100 Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
If you are willing to disregard the meaning of some of the words in
the DFSG in order to reinterpret it, there is more than one way to do
so.
Sadly, it is the FSF who disregard the meaning of "software" and
support propri
On 2003-09-20 05:03:54 +0100 Fedor Zuev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
You may point to any relevant cases, or clarifications from
official bodies, or something similar?
Most of the relevant case law is not available online without
subscription, but for clarifications on why "fair dealing"
Mike Hommey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a tapoté :
> On Saturday 20 September 2003 02:16, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> > You seem to be suggesting that this would satisfy the distribution terms of
> > the GFDL. Are you really suggesting this? If so, we may have a solution.
>
> Unfortunately, the invariant
On 2003-09-20 04:22:59 +0100 Fedor Zuev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
is very vague concept and yes, in this vague form exists only in US
and, maybe, China)
Thank you for admitting your error, albeit in an oblique manner.
Again, if you look for the fair use in general, you should
take al
On 2003-09-20 04:48:25 +0100 Fedor Zuev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Sorry, I made insufficient quoting. Discussion was not about
fair use in general, but about one specific case of quotation. See
my reply to Arnoud Galactus Engelfriet.
This subthread is about fair use in general. Maybe
On Saturday 20 September 2003 02:16, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> You seem to be suggesting that this would satisfy the distribution terms of
> the GFDL. Are you really suggesting this? If so, we may have a solution.
Unfortunately, the invariant sections are not the only issue for non-freeness
of
> I've decided not to do that. The development of GNU licenses is not a
> Debian issue.
Neither is the inclusion of GNU manuals in Debian a FSF issue.
That's what I said--at least twice in the past week.
> Manuals are not free software, because they are not software.
> The DFSG very clearly treats "software" and "programs" as
> synonymous.
Richard, once and for all, please read
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200308/msg00690.html
Thanks for mentioning th
On Fri, 19 Sep 2003, MJ Ray wrote:
>On 2003-09-19 19:37:59 +0100 Fedor Zuev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Wed, 17 Sep 2003, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>>> As has been previously pointed out, fair use is far from a universal
>>> concept.
>> Berne Convention, art. 10 par. 1
>Par 2 says that the
On Fri, 19 Sep 2003, Arnoud Galactus Engelfriet wrote:
>Fedor Zuev wrote:
>> On Wed, 17 Sep 2003, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> >As has been previously pointed out, fair use is far from a universal
>> >concept.
>>
>> Berne Convention, art. 10 par. 1
>That's not fair use. Paragraph 1 deals with c
On Fri, 19 Sep 2003, Andrew Suffield wrote:
>> >Within the United Kingdom, it doesn't exist,
>>
>> Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, art. 32.
>That section is about the use of copyrighted materials for
>education. It does not apply to anything else.
>It is written in fiddly UK lawyerspeak
Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Friday, Sep 19, 2003, at 19:43 US/Eastern, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
>>
>> I, um, think he meant me, given I *did* say there is a violation of
>> DFSG 2, since binary-only distribution is not permitted.
>
> Ah! Yeah, that must be what I meant...
>
56 matches
Mail list logo
