Re: REVISED PROPOSAL regarding DFSG 3 and 4, licenses, and modifiable text

On Sat, Dec 15, 2001 at 12:18:28PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: > Right, but the fixed limit proposal would extend beyond just the > GFDL. Perhaps a developer writes a horrid novella, and puts one short > bit in each of many packages, marked invariant. They have thus > subverted the point o

Re: REVISED PROPOSAL regarding DFSG 3 and 4, licenses, and modifiable text

Richard Braakman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Fri, Dec 14, 2001 at 09:31:58PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: > > I prefer a proportional limit for two reasons. First, a fixed limit > > invites the abuse of splitting a big invariant thing into a bunch of > > packages. Second, a proportion

Re: REVISED PROPOSAL regarding DFSG 3 and 4, licenses, and modifiable text

On Fri, Dec 14, 2001 at 09:31:58PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: > I prefer a proportional limit for two reasons. First, a fixed limit > invites the abuse of splitting a big invariant thing into a bunch of > packages. Second, a proportional limit guarantees that we get some > real fully-free

Re: REVISED PROPOSAL regarding DFSG 3 and 4, licenses, and modifiable text

Anthony Towns writes: > On Fri, Dec 14, 2001 at 09:31:58PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: > > I think I would be willing to sign on to Branden's latest proposal (as > > referred to in the headers of this message), with two provisos. > > That's not Branden's latest proposal. Oh bother, I mi

Re: REVISED PROPOSAL regarding DFSG 3 and 4, licenses, and modifiable text

On Fri, Dec 14, 2001 at 09:31:58PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: > I think I would be willing to sign on to Branden's latest proposal (as > referred to in the headers of this message), with two provisos. That's not Branden's latest proposal. > First, I would like to replace the 32K limit wi

Re: REVISED PROPOSAL regarding DFSG 3 and 4, licenses, and modifiable text

I think I would be willing to sign on to Branden's latest proposal (as referred to in the headers of this message), with two provisos. (I would also be willing to sign on to Anthony's debian-doc proposal, if the FSF agrees that it satisfies the licenses on its manuals.) First, I would like to re

Re: REVISED PROPOSAL regarding DFSG 3 and 4, licenses, and modifiable text

Scripsit Anthony Towns > So, we've got four choices: > a) Ignore the issue, hope it goes away, be inconsistent > b) Special case RMS/the FSF > c) Allow it for *everyone* > d) Drop the GNU manuals as non-free, and write our own essay > about the importance of free

Re: REVISED PROPOSAL regarding DFSG 3 and 4, licenses, and modifiable text

On Wed, Dec 12, 2001 at 03:23:39PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > I consider "being able to distribute the FSF's stuff in main" both a goal, > and a useful indication of how satisfactory the DFSG is (since the Free > Software Foundation are the authoritative source for one definition of > "free"). >

Re: REVISED PROPOSAL regarding DFSG 3 and 4, licenses, and modifiable text

On Tue, Dec 11, 2001 at 11:58:55AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > On Tue, Dec 11, 2001 at 02:31:55PM +, Stephen Turner wrote: > > > Are you trying to make emacs20 non-free? > > With no disrespect to the FSF, I think that Debian should decide its policy > > by considering the merits of competi

Re: REVISED PROPOSAL regarding DFSG 3 and 4, licenses, and modifiable text

On Tue, Dec 11, 2001 at 02:31:55PM +, Stephen Turner wrote: > On Mon, 10 Dec 2001, Anthony Towns wrote: > > > > Are you trying to make emacs20 non-free? [...] > With no disrespect to the FSF, I think that Debian should decide its policy > by considering the merits of competing arguments. It sh

Re: REVISED PROPOSAL regarding DFSG 3 and 4, licenses, and modifiable text

Scripsit Anthony Towns > So, presumably the reason we like modifiability for programs is so that: [...] > For docs, this means things like: [...] Excellent summary. > Hrm. Actually, I can't see any invariant sections in the emacs21 manual, > apart from the GPL and the GFDL themselves. Am I blin

Re: REVISED PROPOSAL regarding DFSG 3 and 4, licenses, and modifiable text

On Mon, 10 Dec 2001, Anthony Towns wrote: > > Are you trying to make emacs20 non-free? > There seems to have been a tendency throughout this discussion to determine _policy_ based on the _practice_ of the FSF. Doesn't anyone else think that this is the wrong way to proceed? With no disrespect

Re: REVISED PROPOSAL regarding DFSG 3 and 4, licenses, and modifiable text

On Mon, Dec 10, 2001 at 02:03:18AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > > Do you think emacs20 should be considered non-free? > I'm undecided on that point. It seems like it's a good one to consider then. Let's assume at the outset that it's not going to be declared non-free for woody, so that argu

Re: REVISED PROPOSAL regarding DFSG 3 and 4, licenses, and modifiable text

On Mon, Dec 10, 2001 at 02:06:20PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > On Sun, Dec 09, 2001 at 10:44:21PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > > > or are we trying to make emacs non-free, > > No, but it is also not my intent to author some decree that specific > > works shall never be regarded as non-free.

Re: REVISED PROPOSAL regarding DFSG 3 and 4, licenses, and modifiable text

On Sun, Dec 09, 2001 at 10:44:21PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > > or are we trying to make emacs non-free, > No, but it is also not my intent to author some decree that specific > works shall never be regarded as non-free. No one's talking about how the DFSG might change later, it's how it m

Re: REVISED PROPOSAL regarding DFSG 3 and 4, licenses, and modifiable text

On Sun, Dec 09, 2001 at 02:59:00PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > On Sat, Dec 08, 2001 at 02:00:24AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > > With a limit of 8,000 or 10,000 bytes, the GNU Emacs Manual would easily > > fail. The GNU Manifesto itself easily blows past those limits. > > Then it would've b

Re: REVISED PROPOSAL regarding DFSG 3 and 4, licenses, and modifiable text

On Sat, Dec 08, 2001 at 02:00:24AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > With a limit of 8,000 or 10,000 bytes, the GNU Emacs Manual would easily > fail. The GNU Manifesto itself easily blows past those limits. Then it would've been a better example to look at for the purposes of determining a byte co

Re: REVISED PROPOSAL regarding DFSG 3 and 4, licenses, and modifiable text

Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sat, Dec 08, 2001 at 03:43:44PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > The above figures are the result of opening the info files in vim and > using line-visual mode to extract the relevant sections. I omitted the > info node material. I didn't bother to do

Re: REVISED PROPOSAL regarding DFSG 3 and 4, licenses, and modifiable text

On Fri, Dec 07, 2001 at 11:25:05PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: > Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > At the time, I wanted to leave a generous margin. Over the course of > > discussion it has occurred to me that being charitable isn't > > particularly appreciated. 32,768 st

Re: REVISED PROPOSAL regarding DFSG 3 and 4, licenses, and modifiable text

Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > At the time, I wanted to leave a generous margin. Over the course of > discussion it has occurred to me that being charitable isn't > particularly appreciated. 32,768 struck me as generous enough without > giving away the farm. You want 32,000, tha

Re: REVISED PROPOSAL regarding DFSG 3 and 4, licenses, and modifiable text

On Sat, Dec 08, 2001 at 03:43:44PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > Uh. I'm a little lost. > > Your argument seems to be: > > * There's 20k bytes of invariant text in the GCC manual. > * There's roughly 8k bytes of invariant text in the units this > proposal uses in the GCC manua

Re: REVISED PROPOSAL regarding DFSG 3 and 4, licenses, and modifiable text

On Thu, Dec 06, 2001 at 01:56:23AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > On Thu, Dec 06, 2001 at 02:52:47PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > > On Mon, Dec 03, 2001 at 11:01:49PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > > > For instance: > > > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > "> * It's unjustified. Why 3

Re: REVISED PROPOSAL regarding DFSG 3 and 4, licenses, and modifiable text

On Thu, Dec 06, 2001 at 02:52:47PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > On Mon, Dec 03, 2001 at 11:01:49PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > > For instance: > > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > "> * It's unjustified. Why 32,768 bytes? Why not 32,000 bytes? > > You want 32,000 instead? You've got

Re: REVISED PROPOSAL regarding DFSG 3 and 4, licenses, and modifiable text

On Mon, Dec 03, 2001 at 11:01:49PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > For instance: > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > "> * It's unjustified. Why 32,768 bytes? Why not 32,000 bytes? > You want 32,000 instead? You've got it." Which, you'll notice didn't answer the question, nor did it remotel

Re: REVISED PROPOSAL regarding DFSG 3 and 4, licenses, and modifiable text

Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Tue, Dec 04, 2001 at 10:34:26PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: > > T and N are right next to each other on my keyboard... > > Sure. *SRE.* :) > > We're going to have to start calling you Tommy Flanagan, not Tommy > Bushnell. :

Re: REVISED PROPOSAL regarding DFSG 3 and 4, licenses, and modifiable text

On Tue, Dec 04, 2001 at 10:34:26PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) writes: > > I intend to attempt to pull the wool over RMS's eyes (as if I > > could); just that this is a possible compromise. > > Eek, what a horrid typo! > > I meant "I intend no at

Re: REVISED PROPOSAL regarding DFSG 3 and 4, licenses, and modifiable text

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) writes: > My point here is "this would be OK for Debian, right?" I intend to > attempt to pull the wool over RMS's eyes (as if I could); just that > this is a possible compromise. Rather than guess at what RMS would > say, let's see what he actually does

Re: REVISED PROPOSAL regarding DFSG 3 and 4, licenses, and modifiable text

Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Tue, Dec 04, 2001 at 05:15:50PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: > > I don't mean a Debian-specific license. I mean RMS giving the Debian > > project a copy of the manual, with political sections, but without > > marking them as invariant, under

Re: REVISED PROPOSAL regarding DFSG 3 and 4, licenses, and modifiable text

On Tue, Dec 04, 2001 at 05:15:50PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: > I don't mean a Debian-specific license. I mean RMS giving the Debian > project a copy of the manual, with political sections, but without > marking them as invariant, under the understand that Debian would not > remove the inv

Re: REVISED PROPOSAL regarding DFSG 3 and 4, licenses, and modifiable text

On Tue, 4 Dec 2001, Walter Landry wrote: > For software it is not even a consideration. Why should we consider > it for documentation, which is definitely less important? Damn straight. We hold out for free software, and happily put distributable-but-nonfree stuff on some of our mirrors. Why o

Re: REVISED PROPOSAL regarding DFSG 3 and 4, licenses, and modifiable text

Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Tue, Dec 04, 2001 at 01:03:24PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: > > What would you think about requesting the FSF to give Debian a copy of > > the manual with no such license restriction, > > The only way the FSF can "give Debian a copy of the

Re: REVISED PROPOSAL regarding DFSG 3 and 4, licenses, and modifiable text

On Tue, Dec 04, 2001 at 03:13:44PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: > Ah, you mean the "how to apply this to your own program" section and > the like. ...and the preamble, yes. -- G. Branden Robinson|I just wanted to see what it looked Debian GNU/Linux |

Re: REVISED PROPOSAL regarding DFSG 3 and 4, licenses, and modifiable text

On Tue, Dec 04, 2001 at 01:03:24PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: > What would you think about requesting the FSF to give Debian a copy of > the manual with no such license restriction, The only way the FSF can "give Debian a copy of the manual" in any meaningful sense would be to have a Debia

Re: REVISED PROPOSAL regarding DFSG 3 and 4, licenses, and modifiable text

Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Tue, Dec 04, 2001 at 11:55:24AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: > > Great! What I'd like to see is some kind of idea about how exactly > > these exceptions are to be made, and by whom. > > I'm open to suggestions. Keep in mind that the Debi

Re: REVISED PROPOSAL regarding DFSG 3 and 4, licenses, and modifiable text

Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Er, I think you misunderstood me. The liberties I referred have to do > with including the parts *outside* the "Terms and Conditions" section, and > not a statement about the legal merits of those terms and conditions. Ah, you mean the "how to apply

Re: REVISED PROPOSAL regarding DFSG 3 and 4, licenses, and modifiable text

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) wrote: > Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > > 0. In general we're not happy about invariant parts of documentation. > > > >It's a complete showstopper if they contain technical information, > > > >but even if they don't we'd rather no

Re: REVISED PROPOSAL regarding DFSG 3 and 4, licenses, and modifiable text

Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > 0. In general we're not happy about invariant parts of documentation. > > >It's a complete showstopper if they contain technical information, > > >but even if they don't we'd rather not have them at all. Sometimes > > >they're let in anyw

Re: REVISED PROPOSAL regarding DFSG 3 and 4, licenses, and modifiable text

On Tue, Dec 04, 2001 at 11:55:24AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: > Great! What I'd like to see is some kind of idea about how exactly > these exceptions are to be made, and by whom. I'm open to suggestions. Keep in mind that the Debian FTP administrators will want to kept in the loop. --

Re: REVISED PROPOSAL regarding DFSG 3 and 4, licenses, and modifiable text

On Tue, Dec 04, 2001 at 11:53:45AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: > > It's the same kind of backsliding that I'm worried about when it comes > > to permitting invariant text into main. To date, license texts and > > copyright notices are pretty well-defined documents with discrete > > boundari

Re: REVISED PROPOSAL regarding DFSG 3 and 4, licenses, and modifiable text

Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, Dec 04, 2001 at 05:42:12PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote: > > The less "benign" the contents of the invariant section is, the less > > of it should be acceptet. Of course some kinds of contents should not > > be accepted at all - for example > >

Re: REVISED PROPOSAL regarding DFSG 3 and 4, licenses, and modifiable text

Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I am of the opinion that not explicitly talking about inclusive and > exclusive exceptions in my proposal was an omission that should not have > been made. You can be sure that I will address that issue in the next > version of my proposal, if it isn

Re: REVISED PROPOSAL regarding DFSG 3 and 4, licenses, and modifiable text

Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Well, while I find the above personally offensive and without much in > the way of merit, I personally am a pretty radical advocate of free > speech rights. Outlaw hate speech today and they may decide tomorrow > that, say, machine code isn't worthy

Re: REVISED PROPOSAL regarding DFSG 3 and 4, licenses, and modifiable text

Scripsit Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > A derived version of this manual must reproduce this notice > > verbatim: "ALL NIGGERS MUST DIE". > > where, I'm sure most of us can agree, the 160 bits of invariant > > text here is 160 bits too much. > Well, while I find the above personall

Re: REVISED PROPOSAL regarding DFSG 3 and 4, licenses, and modifiable text

On Tue, Dec 04, 2001 at 09:35:11AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: [...] > But you do find a megabyte acceptable, as long as it's split up among > many different packages? [...] > Yes. I want my novella published, so I break it up into pieces, and > attach each piece to a different package; don

Re: REVISED PROPOSAL regarding DFSG 3 and 4, licenses, and modifiable text

Damn typos. On Tue, Dec 04, 2001 at 12:53:46PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > I agree, and it was never my contention that nothing that got in under anything > the ~32 thousand byte limit couldn't be nasty. Hence the provision for [...] > either th

Re: REVISED PROPOSAL regarding DFSG 3 and 4, licenses, and modifiable text

On Tue, Dec 04, 2001 at 05:42:12PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote: > FWIW, I don't think it is wise to make a set of guidelines that center > on *size* of the invariant text as the main parameter for the > decision. Belive it or not, I agree. The reason "size matters" -- or appears to -- so much in

Re: REVISED PROPOSAL regarding DFSG 3 and 4, licenses, and modifiable text

Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > A proportional limit seems more sensible to me. > > It doesn't to me. I don't find a megabyte of invariant text acceptable, > whether the total work is 1, 2, 3, 4, 10, or even 20 megabytes. Beyond > that

Re: REVISED PROPOSAL regarding DFSG 3 and 4, licenses, and modifiable text

On Mon, Dec 03, 2001 at 10:13:20PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: > Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > In addition to these outright offers to amend my proposal, I've > > considered several alternatives at length in many of mails on this > > subject. I trust you don't the Mess

Re: REVISED PROPOSAL regarding DFSG 3 and 4, licenses, and modifiable text

Scripsit Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To that end, I'm willing to bend a bit to accomodate the GNU folks on a > utilitarian basis. However, such accomodation naturally requires > artifices. One would be to say the FSF can do whatever it wants and > we'll call it Free. Another is to se

Re: REVISED PROPOSAL regarding DFSG 3 and 4, licenses, and modifiable text

"Scott M. Dier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Tue, 2001-12-04 at 00:13, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: > > As yet, you haven't really said why you oppose a proportional system, > > especially since it's easier to deliberately evade a fixed limit > > system. > > Include a 8mb /dev/null file as one

Re: REVISED PROPOSAL regarding DFSG 3 and 4, licenses, and modifiable text

On Tue, 2001-12-04 at 00:13, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: > As yet, you haven't really said why you oppose a proportional system, > especially since it's easier to deliberately evade a fixed limit > system. Include a 8mb /dev/null file as one of your datafiles. It compresses well, and it helps you

Re: REVISED PROPOSAL regarding DFSG 3 and 4, licenses, and modifiable text

Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > In addition to these outright offers to amend my proposal, I've > considered several alternatives at length in many of mails on this > subject. I trust you don't the Message-ID's and quotes for those as > well, but all you have to do is tell me I hav

Re: REVISED PROPOSAL regarding DFSG 3 and 4, licenses, and modifiable text

On Tue, Dec 04, 2001 at 11:44:30AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > As usual, you fail to notice the part where you then go on to refuse > to consider any alternatives, For instance: Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> "> * It's unjustified. Why 32,768 bytes? Why not 32,000 bytes? You want 32,000

Re: REVISED PROPOSAL regarding DFSG 3 and 4, licenses, and modifiable text

On Mon, Dec 03, 2001 at 12:23:05PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > > Sometime in the next few years you might like to consider if there's a > > more effective way to build consensus than your modus operandi. > Yes, certainly posting a proposal to a public forum which presumably > would be comprise

Re: REVISED PROPOSAL regarding DFSG 3 and 4, licenses, and modifiable text

On Mon, Dec 03, 2001 at 01:54:42PM -0800, Walter Landry wrote: > I'm actually of the opinion that Debian shouldn't allow any invariant > text except licenses and copyright notices. I wouldn't object to amending my proposal along these lines. In this case I would eliminate clause 3) entirely and a

Re: REVISED PROPOSAL regarding DFSG 3 and 4, licenses, and modifiable text

Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > But it's becoming clear to me that there are only two people who think > > we even need to worry about this at all. > > Who's the other one? You can count me as well. It's a bit amazing to me that people who are subscribed to debian-legal don't lik

Re: REVISED PROPOSAL regarding DFSG 3 and 4, licenses, and modifiable text

On Mon, Dec 03, 2001 at 10:56:29PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > I'm not really sure why you felt the need to quote that Because people keep asking me the same questions over and over with different window dressing, masquerading them as distinct objections. > although I know you have a narcissiti

Re: REVISED PROPOSAL regarding DFSG 3 and 4, licenses, and modifiable text

On Sun, Dec 02, 2001 at 02:11:31PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > > If a package with 20kB of invariant text isn't clearly okay by your > > guidelines, and a package with 40kB of invariant text clearly > > not-okay, what's the point of having the 32kB figure at all? > "A well-chosen arbitrary lim

Re: REVISED PROPOSAL regarding DFSG 3 and 4, licenses, and modifiable text

On Mon, Dec 03, 2001 at 02:41:21AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > Within what time period? I have made such an assertion with you, RMS, ^ not > Anthony Towns, Henning Makholm, Sunnavind Fenderson, Scott Dier, or > Thomas Uwe Gruettmueller. Sigh. Bedtime. :)

Re: REVISED PROPOSAL regarding DFSG 3 and 4, licenses, and modifiable text

On Sun, Dec 02, 2001 at 11:30:47PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: > Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > I believe Debian should have a standard a priori the GNU Emacs Manual > > (for example), and not reason backwards on the assumption that > > everything that is in main must be

Re: REVISED PROPOSAL regarding DFSG 3 and 4, licenses, and modifiable text

On Sun, Dec 02, 2001 at 11:43:34PM -0800, Tran Nam Binh wrote: > HELP, PLEASE HELP!!! > Hackers have put my user id into > multiple redistributing lists of your technical forum. > I can't unsubcribe with automated system because > my user id is not in the main list. > Please help. I received tons

Re: REVISED PROPOSAL regarding DFSG 3 and 4, licenses, and modifiable text

HELP, PLEASE HELP!!! Hackers have put my user id into multiple redistributing lists of your technical forum. I can't unsubcribe with automated system because my user id is not in the main list. Please help. I received tons of unwanted mails. Please forward this request to the list owner. Thanks -

Re: REVISED PROPOSAL regarding DFSG 3 and 4, licenses, and modifiable text

On Sun, Dec 02, 2001 at 10:48:01PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: > I'd point out that now you have at least three or four times played > the "I won't respond to that" card. The rule is that once you play it > six times, you don't get to pretend to be debating anymore. I don't recognize any s

Re: REVISED PROPOSAL regarding DFSG 3 and 4, licenses, and modifiable text

Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I believe Debian should have a standard a priori the GNU Emacs Manual > (for example), and not reason backwards on the assumption that > everything that is in main must belong there. People find DFSG > violations in main regularly. The intent of my

Re: REVISED PROPOSAL regarding DFSG 3 and 4, licenses, and modifiable text

On Sun, Dec 02, 2001 at 10:46:32PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: > Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > I intend to. I'm sorry to offend you by asking people more familiar > > with the GNU Emacs Manual to assist. > > What bugs me is that you've now issued *TWO* proposals witho

Re: REVISED PROPOSAL regarding DFSG 3 and 4, licenses, and modifiable text

On Sun, Dec 02, 2001 at 10:37:46PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: > By "existing licenses" I meant the actual licenses in actual use, > including the GNU manuals, many of which have invariant sections. Well, three anyway. The GCC manual, the Emacs manual, and the Emacs Lisp Reference manual.

Re: REVISED PROPOSAL regarding DFSG 3 and 4, licenses, and modifiable text

Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Neither does any standard mandate a reply from me. I already asked him > in the message body once to cut it out, and he did not. I'd point out that now you have at least three or four times played the "I won't respond to that" card. The rule is tha

Re: REVISED PROPOSAL regarding DFSG 3 and 4, licenses, and modifiable text

Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I intend to. I'm sorry to offend you by asking people more familiar > with the GNU Emacs Manual to assist. What bugs me is that you've now issued *TWO* proposals without ascertaining their effect first. How many more times are you going to make pro

Re: REVISED PROPOSAL regarding DFSG 3 and 4, licenses, and modifiable text

Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Sun, Dec 02, 2001 at 06:40:11PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: > > > The GNU FDL and OPL are new licenses relative to the BSD, Artistic, and > > > GNU GPL. It is perfectly consistent to expect these new licenses to be > > > used more widely in

Re: REVISED PROPOSAL regarding DFSG 3 and 4, licenses, and modifiable text

On Sun, Dec 02, 2001 at 06:38:56PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: > Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Until you start respecting them I am not going to discuss anything with > > you, except to mention that if you want to use altered versions of the > > GNU FDL, I suggest you t

Re: REVISED PROPOSAL regarding DFSG 3 and 4, licenses, and modifiable text

On Sun, Dec 02, 2001 at 06:43:24PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: > I understand what "software" means, and I guess it's quite sad that > you don't. Oh well. I don't claim there *is* a rigid > definition--it's *you* who are seemingly obsessed with the need to > rigidly define everything in si

Re: REVISED PROPOSAL regarding DFSG 3 and 4, licenses, and modifiable text

On Sun, Dec 02, 2001 at 06:40:11PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: > > The GNU FDL and OPL are new licenses relative to the BSD, Artistic, and > > GNU GPL. It is perfectly consistent to expect these new licenses to be > > used more widely in the future. It is not reasonable to expect them to >

Re: REVISED PROPOSAL regarding DFSG 3 and 4, licenses, and modifiable text

Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > The arbitrary definition of "software" that you seek undermines your > objections to my arbitrary threshold on the quantity of invariant text. I understand what "software" means, and I guess it's quite sad that you don't. Oh well. I don't claim the

Re: REVISED PROPOSAL regarding DFSG 3 and 4, licenses, and modifiable text

Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Sun, Dec 02, 2001 at 12:22:10PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: > > Except right now we have in fact the rule that each person decides for > > himself what is reasonable in this regard, and, in fact, we *DON'T* > > have a lot of invariant text i

Re: REVISED PROPOSAL regarding DFSG 3 and 4, licenses, and modifiable text

Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Until you start respecting them I am not going to discuss anything with > you, except to mention that if you want to use altered versions of the > GNU FDL, I suggest you talk to the FSF about it. Their license document > is copyright and they have no

Re: REVISED PROPOSAL regarding DFSG 3 and 4, licenses, and modifiable text

Hackers have put my user id into some redistributing list of your technical forum. I can't unsubcribe with automated system because my user id is not on the main list. Please help. I received tons of unwanted mails. Please forward this request to the list owner Thanks --- Julian Gilbey <[EMAIL P

Re: REVISED PROPOSAL regarding DFSG 3 and 4, licenses, and modifiable text

On Sat, Dec 01, 2001 at 05:51:29PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > Summary: > > Per recent discussion on the debian-legal mailing list regarding DFSG > section 3 and provisions of recent documentation-specific licenses that > have been developed in recent years, that allow for non-modifiable > po

Re: REVISED PROPOSAL regarding DFSG 3 and 4, licenses, and modifiable text

On Sun, Dec 02, 2001 at 10:23:57PM +0100, Bernd Warken wrote: [snip] You continue to ignore my mail headers. Mail-Copies-To: nobody X-No-CC: I subscribe to this list; do not CC me on replies. Until you start respecting them I am not going to discuss anything with you, except to mention that if y

Re: REVISED PROPOSAL regarding DFSG 3 and 4, licenses, and modifiable text

On Sun, Dec 02, 2001 at 12:21:16PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: > > "Software" can be a very slippery term. > *Yawn*. You mean you can't tell the difference in practical contexts? > Puhleez! The arbitrary definition of "software" that you seek undermines your objections to my arbitrary thr

Re: REVISED PROPOSAL regarding DFSG 3 and 4, licenses, and modifiable text

On Sun, Dec 02, 2001 at 12:22:10PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: > Except right now we have in fact the rule that each person decides for > himself what is reasonable in this regard, and, in fact, we *DON'T* > have a lot of invariant text in main! The GNU FDL and OPL are new licenses relative

Re: REVISED PROPOSAL regarding DFSG 3 and 4, licenses, and modifiable text

On Sun, Dec 02, 2001 at 12:26:16PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: > "Some documentation or other matter in Debian packages is sometimes > distributed under licenses that do not permit modification or the > distribution of modified versions. When these portions are small > relative to the size

Re: REVISED PROPOSAL regarding DFSG 3 and 4, licenses, and modifiable text

On Sun, Dec 02, 2001 at 02:03:38PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > On Sun, Dec 02, 2001 at 07:24:54PM +0100, Bernd Warken wrote: > > > Exactly, so the documents go as 2) and are not ruled by DFSG. > > That's one possible interpretation. I advocate another. Do you agree > with Thomas Bushnell o

Re: REVISED PROPOSAL regarding DFSG 3 and 4, licenses, and modifiable text

* Thomas Bushnell, BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [011202 14:21]: > So the BTS, the mailing lists, the apparatus of the Debian > Constitution, the logo, and all that is now to be excluded? Come on, We distribute the BTS and the lists in the distribution? We might distribute the 'code' behind it. But I

Re: REVISED PROPOSAL regarding DFSG 3 and 4, licenses, and modifiable text

"Sunnanvind" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > aj, tb, it's clear you don't like the proposal, so please come up with > suggestions of your own. You are saying that because you and Branden want a policy, we *must* have one, and if aj and I are now obliged to write one if we don't like yours? In fac

Re: REVISED PROPOSAL regarding DFSG 3 and 4, licenses, and modifiable text

Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Sure, we could throw out the 32k limit and invite everyone to decide for > himself what's reasonable. (I'll bet you'd find a lot of invariant text > in main that way. If you package something for Debian, you tend to want > it in main.) Except right

Re: REVISED PROPOSAL regarding DFSG 3 and 4, licenses, and modifiable text

Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I don't agree with that interpretation. "Software" can be a very > slippery term. I recall a friend of mine from Purdue who asserted that > the only real software is processor microcode -- everything else is just > data files. To get around these a

Re: REVISED PROPOSAL regarding DFSG 3 and 4, licenses, and modifiable text

On Sun, Dec 02, 2001 at 09:34:22PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > On Sun, Dec 02, 2001 at 02:57:56AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > > > However, if you have to GNU manuals, licensed under the FDL, with 20kB > > > of invariant sections each, you can't combine them into a single package, > > > even

Re: REVISED PROPOSAL regarding DFSG 3 and 4, licenses, and modifiable text

On Sun, Dec 02, 2001 at 07:24:54PM +0100, Bernd Warken wrote: I'm sorry, but much of your message is difficult to comprehend. Please also pay attention to: Mail-Copies-To: nobody X-No-CC: I subscribe to this list; do not CC me on replies. > Exactly, so the documents go as 2) and are not ruled by

Re: REVISED PROPOSAL regarding DFSG 3 and 4, licenses, and modifiable text

On Sun, Dec 02, 2001 at 09:45:48PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > On Sun, Dec 02, 2001 at 04:31:06AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > > I don't think we should *encourage* reasoning by fiat or whim > > Possibly more acutely: how is "32kB" justified, apart from fiat or whim? Apparently you got exci

Re: REVISED PROPOSAL regarding DFSG 3 and 4, licenses, and modifiable text

On Sun, Dec 02, 2001 at 02:07:20AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > > If it's not *Software* then either, > > 1) We must treat it as such, or; > 2) We have no mandate to deal with it at all. > > Please review the Social Contract. > Exactly, so the documents go as 2) and are not ruled by DFSG. A

Re: REVISED PROPOSAL regarding DFSG 3 and 4, licenses, and modifiable text

Scripsit "Sunnanvind" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sure, I could picture a more description-based criteria of what's > allowed; like political statements and manifests, with a disclaimer that > if it's obnoxiously long and generally obnoxious it may be disallowed, > but that has problems too. I have

Re: REVISED PROPOSAL regarding DFSG 3 and 4, licenses, and modifiable text

aj wrote: > On Sun, Dec 02, 2001 at 04:31:06AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > > I don't think we should *encourage* reasoning by fiat or whim > > Possibly more acutely: how is "32kB" justified, apart from fiat or > whim? Branden's reasoning seems to be that it's better to fiat once and for all

Re: REVISED PROPOSAL regarding DFSG 3 and 4, licenses, and modifiable text

On Sun, Dec 02, 2001 at 04:31:06AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > I don't think we should *encourage* reasoning by fiat or whim Possibly more acutely: how is "32kB" justified, apart from fiat or whim? Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> I don't sp

Re: REVISED PROPOSAL regarding DFSG 3 and 4, licenses, and modifiable text

On Sun, Dec 02, 2001 at 02:57:56AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > > However, if you have to GNU manuals, licensed under the FDL, with 20kB > > of invariant sections each, you can't combine them into a single package, > > even if that might be more convenient for you and for your users. > Who says

Re: REVISED PROPOSAL regarding DFSG 3 and 4, licenses, and modifiable text

On Sun, Dec 02, 2001 at 09:04:09AM +, Sunnanvind wrote: > If it's the number/percentage that's the problem, we could just say "a > small amount, depending on the character of the invariant material" which > would mean we wouldn't even have to be consequent. A license text could > be very lon

Re: REVISED PROPOSAL regarding DFSG 3 and 4, licenses, and modifiable text

I Second the proposal by Branden Robinson contained below. * Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [011201 16:52]: > [Debian Policy group: I am not sure if the Debian Policy Manual is an > appropriate forum for any of the following material. I invite your > opinions.] > > [Debian GNU Emacsen main

Re: REVISED PROPOSAL regarding DFSG 3 and 4, licenses, and modifiable text

> > But it's becoming clear to me that there are only two people who > think > > we even need to worry about this at all. > > Who's the other one? Is it me? I do think it's good if it's actually clarified somewhere that license texts (and copyright notices of course) are okay, and that some inv

Re: REVISED PROPOSAL regarding DFSG 3 and 4, licenses, and modifiable text

* Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [011202 02:53]: > > but do we want to deticate space and bandwidth to non-free licensing, > > or does the cabal of publishing ideas limit us to thinking of > > documentation as Free? > I'm sorry, I don't understand this part. Theres been business models made

Re: REVISED PROPOSAL regarding DFSG 3 and 4, licenses, and modifiable text

On Sun, Dec 02, 2001 at 02:49:10AM -0600, Scott Dier wrote: > Perhaps call it the DFLG, Debian Free Licensing Guidelines, where as > the License is the focus, and not the contents. That sounds eminently sensible to me. However, it will be likely quite some time before the DFSG can be amended in a

Re: REVISED PROPOSAL regarding DFSG 3 and 4, licenses, and modifiable text

* Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [011202 02:23]: > On Sat, Dec 01, 2001 at 11:14:37PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: > > Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > If it's not *Software* then either, > > > 1) We must treat it as such, or; > > > 2) We have no mandate to deal with i

  1   2   >