Scripsit Adam Warner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Tue, 2003-06-17 at 02:54, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > It must be possible for me to enjoy the freedoms without
> > communicating with anybody else but those whom I voluntarily
> > decide to distribute the software to.
> Why should I have t
On Tue, 2003-06-17 at 02:54, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Scripsit Adam Warner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > A guideline of privacy could be read as a positive obligation that
> > DFSG-free software licences protect against information disclosure.
>
> How about, instead of "information disclosure", to s
On Mon, Jun 16, 2003 at 08:50:59PM +0300, Anton Zinoviev wrote:
> But otherwise let us talk about guidelines rather that about
> definitions.
You seem to be unaware of past discussions on this subject. Could I
trouble you to catch up with the debian-legal archives since (at least)
March of this y
On 13.VI.2003 at 13:06 Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 13, 2003 at 03:29:03PM +0300, Anton Zinoviev wrote:
> > I'd like to mention here that FSF talks about free software and free
> > documentation and not about free works.
>
> Well, they're the Free *Software* Foundation.
> Presumably, they
Scripsit Adam Warner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> A guideline of privacy could be read as a positive obligation that
> DFSG-free software licences protect against information disclosure.
How about, instead of "information disclosure", to speak about "forced
communication" or something like that? As I se
On Sun, Jun 15, 2003 at 01:28:18PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
> The first question seems to be the more important one to this
> discussion, since being able to use/compile/edit the software is more
> fundamental than being able to redistribute it in modified form.
FWIW, I disagree with this prio
On Fri, Jun 13, 2003 at 12:57:13AM -0400, Greg Pomerantz wrote:
> Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I would say that the controlling preference is that of the person who
> > last modified the Work and distributed it in that modified form. Anyone
> > downstream from that person would
Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> OK, so there's lots of argument about "preferred form".
>
> How about a more negative "definition":
>
> Deliberately obfusticated or encrypted forms and program-generated forms
> are *not* preferred forms for making modifications.
So we can't use indent,
On Sunday, Jun 15, 2003, at 12:45 US/Eastern, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
Deliberately obfusticated or encrypted forms and program-generated
forms
are *not* preferred forms for making modifications.
Program-generated forms can become the preferred form. Its certainly
possible to use something
>4) The freedom to change the Work for any purpose[1], to distribute
> one's changes, and to distribute the Work in modified form. Access
> to the form of the work which is preferred for making modifications,
> if applicable, is a precondition for this.
OK, so there's lots of argument about
On Sun, 2003-06-15 at 06:05, Dylan Thurston wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Adam Warner wrote:
> > Branden, perhaps the term "information disclosure" would better suit
> > you/us than "privacy"? That is we propose a DFSG-free licence cannot
> > mandate information disclosure of anything b
Hi
Am Fre, 2003-06-13 um 23.30 schrieb Anthony DeRobertis:
> On Friday, Jun 13, 2003, at 04:57 US/Eastern, Joachim Breitner wrote:
> >
> > "Unrestricted access to all not-common elements to produce the final
> > product is a precondition for this".
> > [...]
> > Humans
> > (non-common: the order
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Adam Warner wrote:
> Branden, perhaps the term "information disclosure" would better suit
> you/us than "privacy"? That is we propose a DFSG-free licence cannot
> mandate information disclosure of anything but the information forming a
> distributed and derived work.
Dylan Thurston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> One clear difference is that the FSF finds the FDL license to be free
> on their terms [...]
To my knowledge, the FSF have never claimed the FDL meets their definition
of free software. Can you show otherwise, please?
--
MJR/slef My Opinion Only and
On Fri, Jun 13, 2003 at 05:02:27PM -0400, Gregory K.Johnson wrote:
> Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I personally have advocated a fifth freedom:
> >
> > 5) The freedom to retain privacy in one's person, effects, and data,
> >including, but not limited to, all Works in one's po
On Sat, Jun 14, 2003 at 03:50:24PM +1200, Adam Warner wrote:
> Branden, perhaps the term "information disclosure" would better suit
> you/us than "privacy"?
Sure, if that's agreeable to others.
> That is we propose a DFSG-free licence cannot mandate information
> disclosure of anything but the in
On Sat, 2003-06-14 at 06:15, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 13, 2003 at 09:15:26AM -0400, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
> > Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > I personally have advocated a fifth freedom:
> > >
> > > 5) The freedom to retain privacy in one's person, effects, and
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Gregory K.Johnson wrote:
> ... But B needn't disclose this offer; B could intentionally make
> itself ineligible to transfer A's offer by conducting its own
> distribution commercially; ...
I'm not sure what you're getting at, but under the terms of the GPL, B
is no
On Friday, Jun 13, 2003, at 04:57 US/Eastern, Joachim Breitner wrote:
"Unrestricted access to all not-common elements to produce the final
product is a precondition for this".
[...]
Humans
(non-common: the order of the 4 bases on the DNA string) :-)
Hmmm... sounds like you're required to dis
On Thursday, Jun 12, 2003, at 22:01 US/Eastern, Joachim Breitner wrote:
Not sure: Technically, for example, you can modify a program in any
possible way just by having access to the assembler code that the
compiler generates out of the closed sources, but this would be far too
difficult to be r
On Thursday, Jun 12, 2003, at 20:10 US/Eastern, Andrew Suffield wrote:
I contemplated a few ways to rephrase it, but whenever I tried, I
found myself arriving back at the first sentence again[1]. As such, I
think it'd be best to remove the second one outright; the freedom is
already adequetely
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I personally have advocated a fifth freedom:
>
> 5) The freedom to retain privacy in one's person, effects, and data,
>including, but not limited to, all Works in one's possession and one's
>own changes to Works written by others.
>
> I need to
Nicolas Kratz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, Jun 12, 2003 at 11:00:51PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
[...]
>> I would say that the controlling preference is that of the person who
>> last modified the Work and distributed it in that modified form. Anyone
>> downstream from that person wou
David B Harris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> One thing I don't think that's entirely clear is about the labelling of
> your changes. The GPL specifies that you must put a notice in a given
> file detailing the date and nature of the changes.
>
> Such may or may not be considered part of the copyri
On Fri, Jun 13, 2003 at 09:15:26AM -0400, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
> Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > I personally have advocated a fifth freedom:
> >
> > 5) The freedom to retain privacy in one's person, effects, and data,
> >including, but not limited to, all Works in one's po
On Fri, Jun 13, 2003 at 03:29:03PM +0300, Anton Zinoviev wrote:
> I'd like to mention here that FSF talks about free software and free
> documentation and not about free works.
Well, they're the Free *Software* Foundation.
Presumably, they care first and foremost about software.
> It is question
On Fri, Jun 13, 2003 at 10:32:40AM +, Dylan Thurston wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > 5) The freedom to retain privacy in one's person, effects, and data,
> >including, but not limited to, all Works in one's possession and one's
> >own changes to Work
Greg Pomerantz said:
> Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I would say that the controlling preference is that of the person who
>> last modified the Work and distributed it in that modified form.
>> Anyone downstream from that person would have to keep the "source" in
>> that form and t
I was mildly confused with Branden's response to my message, and I've
been asked by two other people privately what the conclusion of the
"debate" was, so I'll just summarise quickly here the discussion Branden
and myself had on IRC. I checked with Branden, and he's perfectly happy
with the summary
Nicolas Kratz said:
> Hmmm... Wouldn't distributing the modified Free Work, even if it's only
> distributed to "B", require "A" to make available the modified Free
> Work to third parties? Then one could start from there, and utterly
> disregard "B"s obfuscated version.
>
> I'm pretty sure that is
* Jeremy Hankins ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Having to include a changelog entry describing my modifications and
> (at minimum) that the original author didn't make the change is quite
> a bit different from simply giving some code to a friend w/o telling
> whether I even modified the code. One i
iain d broadfoot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> * Jeremy Hankins ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>> To give a concrete example, accurate attribution of changes (e.g., a
>> changelog) is a good thing because is strengthens the social
>> structures that keep Free Software working, yet it's clearly a limit
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Thomas Hood wrote:
>> 1) The freedom to use the Work for any purpose.
>> 2) The freedom adapt the Work to one's needs. Access to the form of the
> ^to
>>work which is preferred for making modifications (for software, the
>>"source code"), if
* Jeremy Hankins ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > I personally have advocated a fifth freedom:
> >
> > 5) The freedom to retain privacy in one's person, effects, and data,
> >including, but not limited to, all Works in one's possession and
> >
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I personally have advocated a fifth freedom:
>
> 5) The freedom to retain privacy in one's person, effects, and data,
>including, but not limited to, all Works in one's possession and
>one's own changes to Works written by others.
I think (th
* Anton Zinoviev ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On 12.VI.2003 at 16:21 Branden Robinson wrote:
> >
> > The Free Software Foundation promulgates, and the Debian Project
> > generally accepts, four essential freedoms as defining "Free
> > Software".
> >
> > The following is an enumeration of freedoms
> 1) The freedom to use the Work for any purpose.
> 2) The freedom adapt the Work to one's needs. Access to the form of the
^to
>work which is preferred for making modifications (for software, the
>"source code"), if applicable, is a precondition for this.
> 3) The freedom
On 12.VI.2003 at 16:21 Branden Robinson wrote:
>
> The Free Software Foundation promulgates, and the Debian Project
> generally accepts, four essential freedoms as defining "Free
> Software".
>
> The following is an enumeration of freedoms intended to apply to
> non-public-domain works in general.
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Branden Robinson wrote:
> 5) The freedom to retain privacy in one's person, effects, and data,
>including, but not limited to, all Works in one's possession and one's
>own changes to Works written by others.
>
> ... The point is that my usage of your Free Sof
On Thu, Jun 12, 2003 at 11:00:51PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 13, 2003 at 01:10:23AM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 12, 2003 at 04:21:35PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > > 4) The freedom to change the Work for any purpose[1], to distribute
> > >one's changes
Joachim Breitner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> "Unrestricted access to all not-common elements to produce the final
> product is a precondition for this".
>
> This would require to publish the code, the Makefiles, any unpublic
> compiler patches, maybe some UML files that are needed, while elemtents
> l
Hi,
Am Fre, 2003-06-13 um 05.41 schrieb Andrew Suffield:
> > Not sure: Technically, for example, you can modify a program in any
> > possible way just by having access to the assembler code that the
> > compiler generates out of the closed sources, but this would be far too
> > difficult to be rea
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I would say that the controlling preference is that of the person who
> last modified the Work and distributed it in that modified form. Anyone
> downstream from that person would have to keep the "source" in that form
> and the "binary" together.
I t
On Thu, Jun 12, 2003 at 08:54:17PM -0400, David B Harris wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Jun 2003 16:21:35 -0500
> Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Comments?
>
> One thing I don't think that's entirely clear is about the labelling of
> your changes. The GPL specifies that you must put a notice
On Fri, Jun 13, 2003 at 01:10:23AM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 12, 2003 at 04:21:35PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > 4) The freedom to change the Work for any purpose[1], to distribute
> >one's changes, and to distribute the Work in modified form. Access
> >to the form
On Fri, Jun 13, 2003 at 04:01:54AM +0200, Joachim Breitner wrote:
> Not sure: Technically, for example, you can modify a program in any
> possible way just by having access to the assembler code that the
> compiler generates out of the closed sources, but this would be far too
> difficult to be rea
On Fri, Jun 13, 2003 at 01:15:38AM +0200, Joachim Breitner wrote:
> Am Don, 2003-06-12 um 23.21 schrieb Branden Robinson:
> > 5) The freedom to retain privacy in one's person, effects, and data,
> >including, but not limited to, all Works in one's possession and one's
> >own changes to Work
On Fri, Jun 13, 2003 at 04:01:54AM +0200, Joachim Breitner wrote:
> Am Fre, 2003-06-13 um 02.10 schrieb Andrew Suffield:
> > As such, I
> > think it'd be best to remove the second one outright; the freedom is
> > already adequetely described by the first. *Any* form which allows you
> > to modify t
On Fri, 13 Jun 2003 01:10:23 +0100
Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 12, 2003 at 04:21:35PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > 4) The freedom to change the Work for any purpose[1], to distribute
> >one's changes, and to distribute the Work in modified form. Access
> >
Hi,
Am Fre, 2003-06-13 um 02.10 schrieb Andrew Suffield:
> As such, I
> think it'd be best to remove the second one outright; the freedom is
> already adequetely described by the first. *Any* form which allows you
> to modify the work for any purpose, is good enough.
Not sure: Technically, for ex
On Thu, 12 Jun 2003 16:21:35 -0500
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Comments?
One thing I don't think that's entirely clear is about the labelling of
your changes. The GPL specifies that you must put a notice in a given
file detailing the date and nature of the changes.
Such may or m
On 13 Jun 2003 01:15:38 +0200
Joachim Breitner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > 5) The freedom to retain privacy in one's person, effects, and data,
> >including, but not limited to, all Works in one's possession and one's
> >own changes to Works written by others.
>
> Isn't that effectively
On Thu, Jun 12, 2003 at 04:21:35PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> 4) The freedom to change the Work for any purpose[1], to distribute
>one's changes, and to distribute the Work in modified form. Access
>to the form of the work which is preferred for making modifications,
>if applicab
Hi,
Am Don, 2003-06-12 um 23.21 schrieb Branden Robinson:
> 5) The freedom to retain privacy in one's person, effects, and data,
>including, but not limited to, all Works in one's possession and one's
>own changes to Works written by others.
Isn't that effectively this "lonely island test
Branden said:
>Comments?
Well, I love it. :-)
--Nathanael
[Originally this was going to be a reply to the Lego Mindstorms SDK
question, but it turned into an essay. Oh well. :) ]
As Richard M. Stallman of the Free Software Foundation has been saying
for twenty years or more, the "Free" in "Free Software" refers to
freedom, not price. A great deal of F
56 matches
Mail list logo
