Barak Pearlmutter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> With a little help, I've composed a draft DFSG FAQ. It meant as an
> introduction to issues discussed on debian-legal, with some general
> background material to help bring naive readers up from ground zero.
I like it. I would suggest:
* In the s
On Wed, 2003-07-16 at 15:42, Barak Pearlmutter wrote:
> > > Q. How can I find out if there are known doubts about the freedom of
> > > a particular package in Debian but for some reason they have not
> > > yet led to it being removed from the archive?
>
> > I agree that this is an importa
> > Q. How can I find out if there are known doubts about the freedom of
> > a particular package in Debian but for some reason they have not
> > yet led to it being removed from the archive?
> I agree that this is an important Q&A to have.
This is arguably covered in the answer to "what
Henning Makholm said:
> [1] Perhaps then there should also be a follow-up question along the
> lines of
>
> Q. How can I find out if there are known doubts about the freedom of
> a particular package in Debian but for some reason they have not
> yet led to it being removed from the archive
Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If we want to make a distinction, we want to make it for our own sake,
> not for legal reasons.
Indeed, but that would need consensus that a distinction is essential
(all evidence so far suggests it isn't) or desirable (consensus unlikely,
IMO) and at le
Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> For the record, I'm also happy with the version that is in Barak's faq
> presently (which starts with "You should take this answer as a total
> disclaimer of everything. ...")
It's fine with me, too.
Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> In my opinion we actually try our damnedest to make sure, to the best
> of our knowledge, that people *can* rely of having the DFSG freedoms
> when they use software from Debian.
But this is not true. Almost never, the source code itself is
examined,
MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Three problems with that hypothesis:-
>
> 1. We don't have any way of distinguishing software and this documentation
> in a safe manner. My local research suggests that software is generally
> treated as a literary work and electronic documentation definitely
Scripsit Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> I'd be more comfortable with an ending that called a spade a space,
> perhaps something like
For the record, I'm also happy with the version that is in Barak's faq
presently (which starts with "You should take this answer as a total
disclaimer of eve
Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In my opinion we actually try our damnedest to make sure, to the best
> of our knowledge, that people *can* rely of having the DFSG freedoms
> when they use software from Debian. [...]
Calling it a political statement is probably wrong, yes, but it's a
Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> discussion whether software documentation in Debian has to meet the
> DFSG, or some different standards specific to documentation.
Three problems with that hypothesis:-
1. We don't have any way of distinguishing software and this documentation
in a safe
Scripsit Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> I'd like suggest a further question and anser:
> X. If some software is free according to Debian's standards, do I
> still face legal risks when I use, modify or distribute it?
I can see the point, but I think the answer you propose sounds too
m
> (IMHO, the GFDL is a very interesting starting point, and will almost
> certainly evolve to something genuinely useful. The problems that are
I'm not aware of any plans on the FSF's part to significantly evolve
the GFDL. That's not to say that no such plans exist, but we still
need to deal wit
Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> X. If some software is free according to Debian's standards, do I
> still face legal risks when I use, modify or distribute it?
I've said many times, many ways, that talking about "free" on its own
may not be clear enough. Perhaps rephrase "If some
Okay, I rephrased the GFDL stuff a bit. Let me know if you're not
comfortable with it.
--Barak.
Barak Pearlmutter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Okay, I rephrased the GFDL stuff a bit. Let me know if you're not
> comfortable with it.
"Debian in general does not consider material under the GFDL with any
significant clauses "activated" to be free."
"Almost no one would seriously contend that
Barak Pearlmutter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > free license, Debian in general does not consider material under the
>> > GFDL to be free.
>
>> I think it's premature to include such a statement in an official
>
> Good point.
>
> Can you suggest a re-phrase for the GFDL question?
>
> I think it
> > free license, Debian in general does not consider material under the
> > GFDL to be free.
> I think it's premature to include such a statement in an official
Good point.
Can you suggest a re-phrase for the GFDL question?
I think it is fair to say that Debian strongly discourages its use, ie
Barak Pearlmutter wrote:
> With a little help, I've composed a draft DFSG FAQ. It meant as an
> introduction to issues discussed on debian-legal, with some general
> background material to help bring naive readers up from ground zero.
>
> http://people.debian.org/~bap/dfsg-faq.html
I read:
Barak Pearlmutter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> If people think it could be of some official use, I'd be pleased if it
> were taken over into a more formal location.
| Unless the material is dual-licensed under the GFDL and an accepted
| free license, Debian in general does not consider material
Thanks. I incorporated your mods, leaving out the public domain
change because I'm not sure how to phrase "except in France and places
like that where we take that to mean effectively the same thing even
though their legal system doesn't have such a concept except for
people like Leonardo da Vinci
>In the answer to question 9 it might be worth noting the question of
>whether or not things can actually be released into the public
>domain. My understanding is that debian-legal generally quietly
>re-interprets such claims as an extremely permissive license.
In the United States I believe this
Scripsit Jeremy Hankins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> In the answer to question 9 it might be worth noting the question of
> whether or not things can actually be released into the public
> domain. My understanding is that debian-legal generally quietly
> re-interprets such claims as an extremely permiss
Barak Pearlmutter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> With a little help, I've composed a draft DFSG FAQ. It meant as an
> introduction to issues discussed on debian-legal, with some general
> background material to help bring naive readers up from ground zero.
>
> http://people.debian.org/~bap/dfsg-f
With a little help, I've composed a draft DFSG FAQ. It meant as an
introduction to issues discussed on debian-legal, with some general
background material to help bring naive readers up from ground zero.
http://people.debian.org/~bap/dfsg-faq.html
It is a bit rough, so I'd welcome modifications
25 matches
Mail list logo
