Re: A radical approach to rewriting the DFSG

On Sun, May 30, 2004 at 06:28:12AM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote: > I have been toying with the possibility of rewriting the DFSG such > that it enumerates which things a free license *can* do, rather than > just give examples of things it *cannot*. I think that such a revision > could get the guide

Re: A radical approach to rewriting the DFSG

I wrote, > My results so far are at > and then a lot of people wrote comments, most of which I have still not followed up on, due to the demands of my day job. I won't be able to do debian-legal things for the next week or so either; I'll try t

Re: A radical approach to rewriting the DFSG

On Wed, 02 Jun 2004 20:07:06 -0400 Nathanael Nerode wrote: > The essence of what I would accept is this: > > "If you claim, legally, that my work can't be > distributed/used/modified freely by people in general, then *you* > can't distribute/use/modify my work either". A "if you think this > sho

Re: A radical approach to rewriting the DFSG

Glenn Maynard wrote: > On Wed, Jun 02, 2004 at 09:14:23PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote: >> > php4/copyright: may "PHP" appear in their name, without prior >> > written > > I should have quoted this one in full: > > 4. Products derived from this software may not be called "PHP", nor >

Re: A radical approach to rewriting the DFSG

On Wed, Jun 02, 2004 at 09:14:23PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote: > > php4/copyright: may "PHP" appear in their name, without prior written I should have quoted this one in full: 4. Products derived from this software may not be called "PHP", nor may "PHP" appear in their name, without

Re: A radical approach to rewriting the DFSG

Glenn Maynard wrote: > On Wed, Jun 02, 2004 at 08:12:28PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote: >> It's been allowed mostly because they don't really enforce it. For >> instance, Debian's modified version of Apache, which is a derived work, >> has >> "apache" in its name. Furthermore, they've stated th

Re: A radical approach to rewriting the DFSG

On Wed, Jun 02, 2004 at 08:12:28PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote: > It's been allowed mostly because they don't really enforce it. For > instance, Debian's modified version of Apache, which is a derived work, has > "apache" in its name. Furthermore, they've stated that they don't intend > to enfo

Re: A radical approach to rewriting the DFSG

Glenn Maynard wrote: > As a brief observation unrelated to this subthread: this also implicitly > deals with the GPL#8 problem, by not requiring any special casing for > the GPL at all. > > On Tue, Jun 01, 2004 at 12:00:03AM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote: >> I'd like to append something like the f

Re: A radical approach to rewriting the DFSG

>> Scripsit Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> > I would be quite comfortable allowing patent "retaliation" >> > restrictions, but >> > only if they were very carefully tailored. Specifically, license >> > rights must terminate only if the work is alleged to constitute patent >> > infringem

Re: A radical approach to rewriting the DFSG#

On Tue, Jun 01, 2004 at 02:33:32PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote: > On Tue, Jun 01, 2004 at 10:52:22AM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote: > > > /usr/share/doc/apache/copyright > > > > > > 3. The end-user documentation included with the redistribution, > > >if any, must include the following acknowledg

Re: A radical approach to rewriting the DFSG

On Sun, 30 May 2004 13:24:55 +0200 Francesco Poli wrote: > > Comments will be appreciated - both about the general angle of > > attack, and about my specific draft. I have probably forgotten about > > a detail here and there. > > First comments Antoher couple of comments: * "A derived work can

Re: A radical approach to rewriting the DFSG

On Mon, 31 May 2004 01:04:36 -0400 Glenn Maynard wrote: > 2. Source code > "The source for a work is a machine-readable form that is > appropriate for modifying the work or inspecting its structure and > inner workings." > > Is there a benefit to using a different definition than the GPL?

Re: A radical approach to rewriting the DFSG#

On Tue, Jun 01, 2004 at 10:52:22AM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote: > > /usr/share/doc/apache/copyright > > > > 3. The end-user documentation included with the redistribution, > >if any, must include the following acknowledgment: > > "This product includes software developed by the > >

Re: A radical approach to rewriting the DFSG#

On Mon, May 31, 2004 at 07:31:51PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote: > On Tue, Jun 01, 2004 at 12:00:03AM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote: > > I'd like to append something like the following: > > > > The license may not place further constraints on the naming or > > labelling of the derivative work. This i

Re: A radical approach to rewriting the DFSG

On Mon, May 31, 2004 at 10:54:13PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote: > Phrase the proposed restriction in a way that is not specific to > patents. Then construct a scenario where you apply it to copyright. Is > it still an acceptable restriction? I think this would be a mistake. Patents are more diff

Re: A radical approach to rewriting the DFSG

As a brief observation unrelated to this subthread: this also implicitly deals with the GPL#8 problem, by not requiring any special casing for the GPL at all. On Tue, Jun 01, 2004 at 12:00:03AM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote: > I'd like to append something like the following: > > The license may no

Re: A radical approach to rewriting the DFSG

On Tue, Jun 01, 2004 at 12:06:15AM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote: > > As long as there is no > > restriction on how much additional software must be included, the > > requirement could be satisfied by either: > [...] > > * a one byte file containing "w", which would be a valid sh script to > > run th

Re: A radical approach to rewriting the DFSG

On Sun, May 30, 2004 at 06:28:12AM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote: > I have been toying with the possibility of rewriting the DFSG such > that it enumerates which things a free license *can* do, rather than > just give examples of things it *cannot*. I think that such a revision > could get the guide

Re: A radical approach to rewriting the DFSG

On Sun, 30 May 2004 09:06:18 -0700 Josh Triplett wrote: > Francesco Poli wrote: > > * question: "Such a restriction is exactly as silly as it sounds. > > However, some otherwise free programs come with licenses that > > specify that the program must not be sold alone but only as part of > > an agg

Re: A radical approach to rewriting the DFSG

On Mon, 31 May 2004 01:07:02 -0400 Glenn Maynard wrote: [...] > Part 5 seems like it should be an appendix, and not part of the core > guidelines. I agree: much better to separate those /examples/ from the actual guidelines. -- | GnuPG Key ID = DD6DFCF4 | You're compiling a progr

Re: A radical approach to rewriting the DFSG

On Mon, May 31, 2004 at 03:27:06AM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote: > Scripsit Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > I actually don't think the GPL Preamble is entirely legally irrelevant; it > > would presumably color the legal interpretation of the GPL if a question of > > interpretation came

Re: A radical approach to rewriting the DFSG

I've asked you in the past to fix your mailer, so it doesn't break threads. You have laid waste to several large threads on d-devel. You're still doing so. Please fix it; breaking threads is breaking conversations, when threads become large. On Mon, May 31, 2004 at 09:47:28AM -0300, Humberto Mas

Re: A radical approach to rewriting the DFSG

@ 31/05/2004 02:21 : wrote Glenn Maynard : 2. Source code "The source for a work is a machine-readable form that is appropriate for modifying the work or inspecting its structure and inner workings." Is there a benefit to using a different definition than the GPL? You've said it below. T

Re: A radical approach to rewriting the DFSG

Scripsit Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > By my (poor) understanding, contract law and copyright law are not the > same; perhaps "contract" can be removed. Also, perhaps s/country/region/ > ("the laws of California"); s/mean/means/. Yup. Braino, fixed. -- Henning Makholm

Re: A radical approach to rewriting the DFSG

"In contrast, a choice-of-law merely specifies which country's contract law will be used to resolve disputes over what the license text mean." By my (poor) understanding, contract law and copyright law are not the same; perhaps "contract" can be removed. Also, perhaps s/country/region/ ("the laws

Re: A radical approach to rewriting the DFSG

On Mon, May 31, 2004 at 12:49:17AM -0400, Raul Miller wrote: > > I had hoped that the general approach would make this unnecessary - > > the text ought to be framed such that it speaks only of the freedom of > > the actual license grant made by the author. > > Part 5 doesn't seem to fit this desc

Re: A radical approach to rewriting the DFSG

On Mon, May 31, 2004 at 04:33:47AM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote: > I understand and respect your opinion. However, it seems likely that a > GR to "update" the DFSG *will* be proposed by someone within the next > handful (or two) of months. I think that if we are to update it at > all, it deserves

Re: A radical approach to rewriting the DFSG

On Mon, May 31, 2004 at 02:48:19AM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote: > I had hoped that the general approach would make this unnecessary - > the text ought to be framed such that it speaks only of the freedom of > the actual license grant made by the author. Part 5 doesn't seem to fit this descriptio

Re: A radical approach to rewriting the DFSG

Scripsit Lewis Jardine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Maybe an explicit statement of this point would be a useful addition, > possibly in the introduction? I think you're right in general, but I'm not happy with your exact text: > Note that the /license/ is the terms of the /license text/ as > interprete

Re: A radical approach to rewriting the DFSG

Scripsit Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > FWIW, I don't particularly like this idea. The DFSG, in practice, > is working very well, and the "case law" developing around it is > practical and, at least on debian-legal, well-understood. I understand and respect your opinion. However, it seems l

Re: A radical approach to rewriting the DFSG

On Mon, May 31, 2004 at 03:27:06AM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote: > I understand what you're saying, but when I attempt to explain it such > that it is clear for an uninitiated reader what the problem is, it > gets very convoluted. Can't we just hope that an attempt to ITP a > license text as a work

Re: A radical approach to rewriting the DFSG

Scripsit Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > I actually don't think the GPL Preamble is entirely legally irrelevant; it > would presumably color the legal interpretation of the GPL if a question of > interpretation came up. Hm, what about "a non-legal piece of text", then? > Typo, should be "

Re: A radical approach to rewriting the DFSG

Henning Makholm wrote: Scripsit Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> You might want to add a general statement about optional clauses which require release-time steps from the "author", which would cause problems if invoked, but which haven't been invoked. I had hoped that the general approach wo

Re: A radical approach to rewriting the DFSG

Scripsit Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > You might want to add a general statement about optional clauses which > require release-time steps from the "author", which would cause problems > if invoked, but which haven't been invoked. I had hoped that the general approach would make this unnecess

Re: A radical approach to rewriting the DFSG

Glenn Maynard wrote: > What about the old Apache license: > > 3. The end-user documentation included with the redistribution, >if any, must include the following acknowledgment: > "This product includes software developed by the >Apache Software Foundation (http://www.apache.org/

Re: A radical approach to rewriting the DFSG

FWIW, I don't particularly like this idea. The DFSG, in practice, is working very well, and the "case law" developing around it is practical and, at least on debian-legal, well-understood. Perhaps you could call this the "Henning Free Stuff Guidelines" for now? Having the same abbreviation is inc

Re: A radical approach to rewriting the DFSG

Henning Makholm wrote: > I have been toying with the possibility of rewriting the DFSG such > that it enumerates which things a free license *can* do, rather than > just give examples of things it *cannot*. Well, I like the approach a lot. > I think that such a revision > could get the guideline

Re: A radical approach to rewriting the DFSG

On Sun, May 30, 2004 at 04:59:08PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote: > Scripsit Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Just a question: does this mean that you also grandfather GPL#8? > > Um, no. That is a good reason not to have a grandfather clause, > actually. Removed. You might want to add a gene

Re: A radical approach to rewriting the DFSG

Scripsit Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > * the title: why `stuff'? Mostly to emphasize the draftness of the text. Not intended to be permanent. > Should these guidelines become the new DFSG, I think they will be named > Debian Free Software Guidelines version 2.0 Agreed. > * question: "Su

Re: A radical approach to rewriting the DFSG

Francesco Poli wrote: > * question: "Such a restriction is exactly as silly as it sounds. > However, some otherwise free programs come with licenses that specify > that the program must not be sold alone but only as part of an aggregate > software distribution." > Do you regard those programs as fr

Re: A radical approach to rewriting the DFSG

On 30 May 2004 06:28:12 +0100 Henning Makholm wrote: > I have been toying with the possibility of rewriting the DFSG such > that it enumerates which things a free license *can* do, rather than > just give examples of things it *cannot*. It sounds interesting: it may work better... > I think that