Re: Social Contract: Practical Implications

> On Sun, May 09, 2004 at 07:36:24PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote: > > DFSG#10 explicitly states that the GPL is an example of a license we > > consider free. This true, even though the GPL contains the following > > statements: On Sun, May 09, 2004 at 07:56:50PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote: > The imp

Re: Social Contract: Practical Implications

On Sun, May 09, 2004 at 07:36:24PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote: > DFSG#10 explicitly states that the GPL is an example of a license we > consider free. This true, even though the GPL contains the following > statements: The importance of the argument is not license texts at all. As I've said, I don

Re: Social Contract: Practical Implications

On Sun, May 09, 2004 at 05:52:16PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote: > (I'm also not convinced that DFSG#10 talks about the text of the license > rather than the terms. I tend to find that as DFSG#10 is so vague, doesn't > actually place any requirements on freedom, and that there is nothing > approachi

Re: Social Contract: Practical Implications

On Sun, May 09, 2004 at 05:22:21PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote: > And the Debian interpretation is that works distributed under the GPL > (and a number of other licenses) satisfy the DFSG. Yep, but that's not relevant to the argument that "No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor" only applies to

Re: The draft Position statement on the GFDL

On Sun, 9 May 2004, Raul Miller wrote: > [C] If the inaccuracies are, in fact, fraud, then the license terms > can't legally require that they be repeated. Yes--but then, that would mean that Debian couldn't distribute it at all.

RE: Mail Delivery (failure rep.kreibich@legis.state.wi.us)

PLEASE INCLUDE YOUR MAILING ADDRESS. Thank you for contacting my legislative office. I appreciate your interest, and I will respond to your email promptly. Due to the many emails I receive daily, it is necessary to have your full information so that I can answer your questions expeditiously. If

Re: Social Contract: Practical Implications

> On Sun, May 09, 2004 at 10:25:43AM -0400, Raul Miller wrote: > > Nor does it say "all derived works". On Sun, May 09, 2004 at 04:24:51PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote: > You're free to offer alternate interpretations, but showing that they're > valid interpretations does not make them Debian's inte

Re: Social Contract: Practical Implications

On Sun, May 09, 2004 at 10:25:43AM -0400, Raul Miller wrote: > Nor does it say "all derived works". You're free to offer alternate interpretations, but showing that they're valid interpretations does not make them Debian's interpretation, which is the one that holds. :) > If people are going to

Re: reiser4 non-free?

I think we are having two misunderstandings at the same time. You seem to be talking about the specific case of modules for Linux, based on the specifics of the extra permission that Linus gave. That case is different and what I say does not apply to it. You are focusing on the definition of "der

Re: The draft Position statement on the GFDL

> On Thu, May 06, 2004 at 09:57:41AM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote: > > Now, again, some restrictions on creating derived works are generally > > considered acceptable. But required inclusion of arbitrary lumps of text > > in a particular manner certainly isn't one of them (even with the > > oft-i

Re: Poly/ML license

On 2004-05-09 09:33:48 +0100 Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Weirdly, instead of the usual system where everyone gets a license from the original copyright holder, this grants everyone the right to sublicense under the same agreement. I think it has much the same effect, but it's

Re: The draft Position statement on the GFDL

On Sun, May 09, 2004 at 12:08:56PM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote: > The GFDL could requires us not to fix factual inaccuracies. How so? [A] These would have to be factual inaccuracies in a secondary section (which rather limits the scope of any such inaccuracy). [B] Nothing in the GFDL prohibi

Re: Fwd: reiser4 non-free?

> In fact, on first glance, I'm not sure that I understand the difference > between Debian's inclusion of software which triggers GPL 2c (such as bc) > and a similar clause for non-interactive programs. Maybe I'm missing some > previous discussion? Here is an example of a 2(c) notice: [EMAIL PRO

Re: Fwd: reiser4 non-free?

On Tue, May 04, 2004 at 08:50:26AM -0700, Hans Reiser wrote: > I would really like Debian to understand the difference between credits > and ads. Credits describe someone's contribution to the project. Ads > describe some product for you to buy. Very different things. Adds can be for people,

Re: The draft Position statement on the GFDL

On Thu, May 06, 2004 at 09:57:41AM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote: > Now, again, some restrictions on creating derived works are generally > considered acceptable. But required inclusion of arbitrary lumps of text > in a particular manner certainly isn't one of them (even with the > oft-ignored GFD

Re: European Directive on Copyright Law (91/EC/250) wrt open source

On Sat, 2004-05-08 at 17:05, Arnoud Engelfriet wrote: > Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote: > > ... regarding EU directives: are individual governments _allowed_ to > > go beyond the bounds of the EU directives (in the implementation into > > law)? As those directives are most often some sort o

Re: The draft Position statement on the GFDL

On Thu, May 06, 2004 at 10:07:10AM -0400, Raul Miller wrote: > On Thu, May 06, 2004 at 09:18:00AM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote: > > Oh. Well, the GFDL with Invariant Sections requires bloat in distributed > > binaries. > > Where the GFDL is used to license programs, it's not something that we >

Re: GFDL

On Sun, May 09, 2004 at 03:32:07PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote: > The latter (clauses 4b and 4i) fails the Chinese Dissident test. Here's the language in question: B. List on the Title Page, as authors, one or more persons or entities responsible for authorship of the modifications in the Modifi

Re: The draft Position statement on the GFDL

On Sun, May 09, 2004 at 09:01:54AM -0400, Michael Poole wrote: > The exception is in 17 USC 117(a); it allows copying by the _owner of > a copy_ if it is either "an essential step in the utilization of the > computer program" or a backup copy. Which, in the context of the GFDL covers a lot of grou

Re: The draft Position statement on the GFDL

On Sun, May 09, 2004 at 05:30:28AM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote: > Well, making a copy in RAM is making a copy, legally; this is apparently the > caselaw in the US. I'm sorry that I don't have the reference. Loading a register might also also constitute copying, but in the U.S. that's already co

Re: GFDL

On Sun, May 09, 2004 at 03:12:52AM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote: > Mahesh T. Pai wrote: > > > Glenn Maynard said on Thu, May 06, 2004 at 11:38:56PM -0400,: > > > > > He modifies the existing essay to express his own opinion, renames > > > it and makes it clear that it's his opinion and not

Re: Social Contract: Practical Implications

> > They are not exempt. > > > > They are also not programs. So, the additional constraints the DFSG > > puts on programs do not apply to licenses. On Sun, May 09, 2004 at 12:13:24AM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote: > "The license must allow modifications and derived works, and must allow > them to b

Re: Is SystemC license compatible with the GPL ?

On Sun, May 09, 2004 at 02:46:39AM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote: > Diego Biurrun wrote: > > > On Thu, May 06, 2004 at 01:22:24PM +0200, Matthieu Moy wrote: > >> > >> ++ +-+ +-+ > >> || | | | | > >

Re: The draft Position statement on the GFDL

Nathanael Nerode writes: > Well, making a copy in RAM is making a copy, legally; this is apparently the > caselaw in the US. I'm sorry that I don't have the reference. > > There is a specific legislated exemption in copyright law for the copies > made in the course of normal use (or some such), I

Re: The draft Position statement on the GFDL

Raul Miller wrote: > On Sat, May 08, 2004 at 09:38:58PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote: >> Copyrights restrict the right to make copies, period. Not just the right >> to >> distribute them. Legally, they always have, at least in the US. (They >> just aren't enforced terribly often against people

Re: Poly/ML license

Camm Maguire wrote: > Greetings! Is the following DFSG free? No. Clickwrap. And it wants to be a contract. Which is bad to start with. It requires you to give any "Improvements" you make to the original Licensor on demand. That's non-free. To do whatever they like with them, in fact, includ

Re: CA certificates (was: Re: Mass bug filing: Cryptographic protection against modification)

Florian Weimer wrote: > I've digged a bit more, and VeriSign actually has a license governing > the *use* of their certificates (including the root and intermediate > certificates): > > > > The license seems to violate DFSG §6. It also fails the

Re: IRAF package license

Justin Pryzby wrote: > Greetings, > > I'm near completion of a Debian package of IRAF, previously packaged by > Zed Paubre, who has agreed to sponsor me. I believe this new release > has new license issues. > > Here's the deal. IRAF depends on TABLES Really? :-P Ow. Oh, wait, I think I see.

Re: GFDL

On Sun, May 09, 2004 at 03:23:50AM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote: > > But you overlook the possibility of people being misled by twisted > > words. Consequences of a misrepresented opinion are worse than that > Right, but misrepresenting opinions is not OK, and it's perfectly OK to make > a

Re: GFDL

Mahesh T. Pai wrote: > But Debian, I guess, is not interested in passing along the *message*, No, that's not right. The majority of Debian people think that understanding the message and following its principles is *more* important than passing it along. Passing it along is great, but only if

Re: GFDL

Mahesh T. Pai wrote: > Glenn Maynard said on Thu, May 06, 2004 at 11:38:56PM -0400,: > > > He modifies the existing essay to express his own opinion, renames > > it and makes it clear that it's his opinion and not that of the > > FSF, and releases it. You then read it, and get a differ

Re: GFDL

MJ Ray wrote: > [Wow, a real live lawyer on debian-legal. Should I bow or something? > Seriously, praise to you for staying here.] Yeah, we could use your understanding of legalese. :-) Perhaps you can explain bits to us and explain why the worrisome interpretations would never be accepted by a

Re: GFDL

Mahesh T. Pai wrote: > I would have got a very different idea about freedom if this friend > had changed either the FSF's `political speech', or the Debian PM or > DFSG and whatever else is in doc-debian and allied packages. Well, the friend couldn't have represented it as coming from the F

Re: reiser4 non-free?

On Fri, May 07, 2004 at 09:14:06AM -0700, Hans Reiser wrote: > Matthew Palmer wrote: > > Hans Reiser: > >>Q: Can we the distro preserve the credits but send the credits to > >>/dev/null. > >> > >>A: No. How can you even ask such a question? > > > >Q: Can we the distro send the credits to another v

Re: GFDL

Mahesh T. Pai wrote: > I had a discussion with a DD friend on the GFDL; and we both felt that > I should share my views with the list. What follows is slightly > modified text of one of my messages on the subject. > > > I do not agree with RMS on GFDL. It is too restrictive on > > But I

Re: Is SystemC license compatible with the GPL ?

Diego Biurrun wrote: > On Thu, May 06, 2004 at 01:22:24PM +0200, Matthieu Moy wrote: >> >> ++ +-+ +-+ >> || | | | | >> | A | | B | | C | >> |

Re: Is SystemC license compatible with the GPL ?

Matthieu Moy wrote: > [ I know this is out topic here, but I've already sent this mail twice > to [EMAIL PROTECTED], twice to the discussion list of the fsfeurope, > another time to the SystemC mailing list, and didn't get a single > answer :-( ] > > Hi, > > I've developped a pie

Re: European Directive on Copyright Law (91/EC/250) wrt open source

Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote: > i notice in particular that 50B says you may not disclose > what you decompile [to a higher level language] to any party except > those involved in the decompilation process. > > that is 1) _not_ in the 91/EC/250 directive that i saw three years > ago 2)