Hi
On Thursday 13 June 2002 22:58, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 13, 2002 at 12:14:46PM -0700, Walter Landry wrote:
> > Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > 2) We don't want a music webcaster to take DFCL-licensed
> > > piece of music out of "the commons" because he runs the
>
On Thu, Jun 20, 2002 at 12:50:16PM -0400, Brian Sniffen wrote:
> Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > 6. ACCEPTANCE.
> >
> > Copying, distributing or modifying the Work (including but not
> > limited to sampling from the Work in a new work) indicates
> >
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, Jun 20, 2002 at 10:22:26AM -0400, Michael Stutz wrote:
>> The DSL is a license that already exists for this purpose:
>> http://dsl.org/copyleft/dsl.txt
>>
>> It is a copyleft license that can be used for any kind of work, as
>> recognized by
On Thu, Jun 20, 2002 at 10:22:26AM -0400, Michael Stutz wrote:
> The DSL is a license that already exists for this purpose:
> http://dsl.org/copyleft/dsl.txt
>
> It is a copyleft license that can be used for any kind of work, as
> recognized by copyright law. In particular, it has been used for
>
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Given that, it is my intent to develop an unambiguously DFSG-free
> alternative to the OPL and GNU FDL. Until I think of a better name,
> I guess I will call this the DFCL: the Debian Free Content License.
The DSL is a license that already exists for
On Tue, Jun 18, 2002 at 10:23:21AM -0700, Walter Landry wrote:
> I thought we were talking about the best way to allow informal, small
> scale sharing. To recap, I suggested a 100 copy in 30 day limit.
> Lots of people didn't like it, for good reasons. Eventually, you
> suggested something that I
Jeff Licquia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 2002-06-17 at 19:00, Walter Landry wrote:
> > Jeff Licquia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > You didn't answer this question before, so now I insist: is it a fraud
> > > to advertise "free puppies" in the newspaper even though you don't
> > > reimbur
On Mon, 2002-06-17 at 19:00, Walter Landry wrote:
> Jeff Licquia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > You didn't answer this question before, so now I insist: is it a fraud
> > to advertise "free puppies" in the newspaper even though you don't
> > reimburse puppy acquirers for transportation, vet, or oth
Jeff Licquia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 2002-06-17 at 16:35, Walter Landry wrote:
> > Jeff Licquia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > If the Peace Corps volunteer handwrites the URL for the source on the
> > > back of each of the paper copies, then (s)he has fulfilled the license.
> > > As
On Mon, Jun 17, 2002 at 02:35:11PM -0700, Walter Landry wrote:
> > If the Peace Corps volunteer handwrites the URL for the source on the
> > back of each of the paper copies, then (s)he has fulfilled the license.
> > As an added bonus, the Ghanians don't have to do anything to fulfill the
> > dis
On Mon, 2002-06-17 at 16:35, Walter Landry wrote:
> Jeff Licquia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > If the Peace Corps volunteer handwrites the URL for the source on the
> > back of each of the paper copies, then (s)he has fulfilled the license.
> > As an added bonus, the Ghanians don't have to do any
Brian Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Jeff Licquia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> On Mon, 2002-06-17 at 15:21, Walter Landry wrote:
> >> > The problem is not that the kids can't get the source, it is that the
> >> > Peace Corps volunteer can
Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Jeff Licquia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Mon, 2002-06-17 at 15:21, Walter Landry wrote:
>> > The problem is not that the kids can't get the source, it is that the
>> > Peace Corps volunteer can't give them paper copies. The volunteer
>> > can't sa
Jeff Licquia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 2002-06-17 at 15:21, Walter Landry wrote:
> > The problem is not that the kids can't get the source, it is that the
> > Peace Corps volunteer can't give them paper copies. The volunteer
> > can't satisfy all of the conditions on distribution.
>
>
On Mon, 2002-06-17 at 15:21, Walter Landry wrote:
> The problem is not that the kids can't get the source, it is that the
> Peace Corps volunteer can't give them paper copies. The volunteer
> can't satisfy all of the conditions on distribution.
I traced this thread back to my original proposal, a
Jeff Licquia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 2002-06-17 at 13:28, Walter Landry wrote:
> > Jeff Licquia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > On Sun, 2002-06-16 at 21:29, Walter Landry wrote:
> > > > Jeff Licquia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > That's not the problem of the distributor. If th
On Mon, 2002-06-17 at 13:28, Walter Landry wrote:
> Jeff Licquia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Sun, 2002-06-16 at 21:29, Walter Landry wrote:
> > > Jeff Licquia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > That's not the problem of the distributor. If they handwrite "you can
> > > > get your own copy fr
Jeff Licquia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, 2002-06-16 at 21:29, Walter Landry wrote:
> > Jeff Licquia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > That's not the problem of the distributor. If they handwrite "you can
> > > get your own copy from http://foo.com/bar"; on the back of the last page,
> > >
On Sun, 2002-06-16 at 21:29, Walter Landry wrote:
> Jeff Licquia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > That's not the problem of the distributor. If they handwrite "you can
> > get your own copy from http://foo.com/bar"; on the back of the last page,
> > they aren't required to give you network access fo
Jeff Licquia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, 2002-06-14 at 17:52, Walter Landry wrote:
> > Jeff Licquia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Regarding your specific concerns: The "at no charge" part was predicated
> > > on an understanding that this was one of three options. You can either
> > >
On Sat, Jun 15, 2002 at 08:58:25PM -0400, Zephaniah E. Hull wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 13, 2002 at 10:13:01PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > Keep it mind what DFSG 6 literally says:
> >
> > No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor
> >
> > The license must not restrict anyone from making
On Thu, Jun 13, 2002 at 10:13:01PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > But I'd have a hard time ignoring it for a license that said:
> >
> > If you are an educational institution, you may follow the terms of
> > the
> > X11 license.
> >
> > If you are a non-profit or other non-co
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [1] I am unable to determine what is going on with MySQL AB v. Progress
> Software ("NuSphere"). The Federal 1st Circuit's calendar is not
> available via their website.
Isn't the case currently in US District Court?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [1] I am unable to determine what is going on with MySQL AB v. Progress
> Software ("NuSphere"). The Federal 1st Circuit's calendar is not
> available via their website.
I think you mean the First Circuit; the Federal Circuit is another
court. Sayi
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> No one has yet gone to trial over the GNU GPL[1].
However it *has* been enforced. Eben Moglen has a nice essay on how
easy it has been to enforce the GPL.
Thomas
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trou
On Fri, Jun 14, 2002 at 11:40:37AM -0700, Walter Landry wrote:
> When the professor got the source to the book, did she not read the
> license? Was the professor not giving access to the source of the
> document? It's not that hard to make an announcement at the beginning
> of class offering the
On Fri, 2002-06-14 at 17:52, Walter Landry wrote:
> Jeff Licquia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Regarding your specific concerns: The "at no charge" part was predicated
> > on an understanding that this was one of three options. You can either
> > distribute source right then, offer to give them s
Jeff Licquia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, 2002-06-14 at 16:41, Walter Landry wrote:
> > This should probably be "a charge no more than the cost of physically
> > performing source distribution" rather than "no charge". I would also
> > keep the noncommercial distribution stipulation from t
On Fri, 2002-06-14 at 16:41, Walter Landry wrote:
> Jeff Licquia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > If there isn't a problem with requiring that the professor distribute
> > the source, then there isn't a problem whether the professor distributes
> > one copy or one thousand. Therefore, the whole volu
Jeff Licquia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, 2002-06-14 at 13:40, Walter Landry wrote:
> > When the professor got the source to the book, did she not read the
> > license? Was the professor not giving access to the source of the
> > document? It's not that hard to make an announcement at the
On Fri, 2002-06-14 at 13:40, Walter Landry wrote:
> When the professor got the source to the book, did she not read the
> license? Was the professor not giving access to the source of the
> document? It's not that hard to make an announcement at the beginning
> of class offering the course to any
Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 2002-06-13 at 22:28, Branden Robinson wrote:
>
> > If the consumer can apply a transformation to what he recives that
> > perfectly restores the original, I don't see a problem.
>
> I assume here that you mean the consumer can, given the sou
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 13, 2002 at 06:19:25PM -0700, Walter Landry wrote:
> > Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > I don't want to see the DFCL used as a weapon against people who haven't
> > > done anything ethically illegitimate.
> >
> > I'm trying
GARR.
From: Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: debian-legal@lists.debian.org
WHAT PART OF
Mail-Copies-To: nobody
X-No-CC: I subscribe to this list; do not CC me on replies.
DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND?
If you
> Uh, what the hell are you guys talking about? :)
>
> Get this crap out of my thread. ;-)
Ah, now that we've got you up late, we can get our gold old Branden
back. We've missed you.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
On Thu, 2002-06-13 at 22:28, Branden Robinson wrote:
> If the consumer can apply a transformation to what he recives that
> perfectly restores the original, I don't see a problem.
I assume here that you mean the consumer can, given the source, recreate
whatever he received from the distributor.
On Fri, Jun 14, 2002 at 04:36:19AM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> On Thu, 2002-06-13 at 00:22, Nick Phillips wrote:
>
> > It's clear to anyone who bothers to examine the source code that the
> > elements
> > you are talking about are insertions and perform functions other than that
> > for wh
On Thu, 2002-06-13 at 00:22, Nick Phillips wrote:
> It's clear to anyone who bothers to examine the source code that the elements
> you are talking about are insertions and perform functions other than that
> for which the whole thing was intended.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:mozilla-1.0.0$ find -type f -e
On Thu, 2002-06-13 at 23:13, Branden Robinson wrote:
[ I'll respond to the references in their proper place ]
>
> > Well, I don't think we should worry much about Ghana.
>
> I do.
That was supposed to be read with the following two paragraphs, which I
believe would alleviate all of Ghana's pro
On Thu, Jun 13, 2002 at 06:19:25PM -0700, Walter Landry wrote:
> Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I don't want to see the DFCL used as a weapon against people who haven't
> > done anything ethically illegitimate.
>
> I'm trying to think of a case where this might happen, but I can't
On Thu, Jun 13, 2002 at 09:28:09PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> If the consumer can apply a transformation to what he recives that
> perfectly restores the original, I don't see a problem.
>
> I'm not crazy about permitting degradation of quality or fidelity. That
> like saying it's okay for
On Thu, Jun 13, 2002 at 09:56:34PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> I would say it has to be for the version corresponding to the hardcopy,
> just as the GPL requires. I don't think this is an economically
> infeasible requirement. It's part of the responsibility of
> distributing.
Agreed. Just
On Thu, Jun 13, 2002 at 09:35:17PM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> >I do not think we want to DFCL to attempt to restrict people from
> >applying proprietary "transforms" to DFCL-licensed data, as long as the
> >DFCL content is recoverable or otherwise available. Hmm. This could
> >get really,
On Fri, Jun 14, 2002 at 01:28:37PM +1200, Nick Phillips wrote:
> > However, no one is required to archive old versions of software as long
> > as they contemporaenously distribute binaries with corresponding source.
> >
> > I.e., the scenario you describe can happen even with the GNU GPL.
>
> If
On Fri, Jun 14, 2002 at 01:09:10PM +1200, Nick Phillips wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 13, 2002 at 09:12:27AM -0700, Mark Rafn wrote:
> > There are both edge cases and fundamental disagreements that Branden very
> > likely already has on his list, but seeing discussion may help him
> > determine how to prior
On Fri, Jun 14, 2002 at 11:31:22AM +1200, Nick Phillips wrote:
> I would suggest focusing more on the fact that we are dealing with
> the issue of reproducing the work than transforming it. Maybe something
> like "whilst the exact process used to reproduce the work as distributed
> from the provide
I do not think we want to DFCL to attempt to restrict people from
applying proprietary "transforms" to DFCL-licensed data, as long as the
DFCL content is recoverable or otherwise available. Hmm. This could
get really, really, thorny. Consider:
Consider my 'proprietary' transformation of:
On Thu, Jun 13, 2002 at 07:02:04PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 14, 2002 at 11:02:57AM +1200, Nick Phillips wrote:
> > Yes... so if you've printed/released version 2.7183 of a document (of which
> > I released version 1 under this new license), and version 2.7183 is a
> > book, you
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 13, 2002 at 03:20:28PM -0700, Walter Landry wrote:
> > I think I'm recognizing reality here. You were worried about
> > distributing to schoolkids in Ghana. I'm showing that it isn't a
> > problem. You don't have to like it, it is just th
On Thu, Jun 13, 2002 at 09:12:27AM -0700, Mark Rafn wrote:
> Are you advocating that we might need to non-lightly consider it?
I was responding to Branden mentioning that he might have to do
something-or-other to conform to DFSG, just mentioning that it should
not be taken as axiomatic (as oppos
On Thu, Jun 13, 2002 at 03:20:28PM -0700, Walter Landry wrote:
> > I would disagree.
>
> I was just noting that the small scale exemption would cover this kind
> of activity as well.
You'll note that after thinking about it more, I withdrew my
disagreement. The only ways I can think of to avoid
On Fri, Jun 14, 2002 at 11:02:57AM +1200, Nick Phillips wrote:
> Yes... so if you've printed/released version 2.7183 of a document (of which
> I released version 1 under this new license), and version 2.7183 is a
> book, you can not then rev rapidly to version 3.1416, by which point you
> have prog
On Thu, Jun 13, 2002 at 03:58:08PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> We need to:
> 1) Ensure that people have unlimited permission to do sane and
> reasonable things, like netcast a piece of DFCL music, print out a DFCL
> document, and perform a DFCL play.
> 2) Ensure that people can modify and dis
On Thu, Jun 13, 2002 at 11:37:31AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> I want to cast the terms more broadly than that, since technology
> changes and while it looks like the Web will be with us for a good long
> time, we need to draft our license for the ages in the event that the
> Mickey Mouse^W^W
On Thu, Jun 13, 2002 at 02:56:25PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
> This "preferred form" rule has always bothered me somewhat for these
> reasons, particularly in the context of existing Debian packages
> containing docs distributed in a format other than the original. And maybe
> it's not reasona
On Thu, Jun 13, 2002 at 11:41:28AM -0700, Walter Landry wrote:
> > OK, let's take a more likely scenario. Alice writes a manifesto for Free
> > Software. Bob subtly edits it to become a manifesto for Open Source. If Bob
> > says "Document edited by Bob, based on an original by Alice. (c) Alice 199
On Thu, Jun 13, 2002 at 03:58:08PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> So you are suggesting that taking a DFCL-licensed document, making no
> changes to it, but printing it out on a laser printer that has
> proprietary fonts built into it should be a prohibited activity, for
> which we need an except
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 13, 2002 at 12:14:46PM -0700, Walter Landry wrote:
> > Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > 1) We don't want to tell Professor Smith that he's in violation because
> > > he printed out a DFCL-licensed document, but the font in h
On Thu, Jun 13, 2002 at 12:14:46PM -0700, Walter Landry wrote:
> Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > 1) We don't want to tell Professor Smith that he's in violation because
> > he printed out a DFCL-licensed document, but the font in his laser
> > printer is proprietary to, say, Hewlett
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 13, 2002 at 11:41:13AM -0700, Walter Landry wrote:
> > You have modified the original such that the preferred form for
> > modifications has changed. People do this all the time (e.g. recoding
> > a Perl project in Python). I don't think that
On Thu, Jun 13, 2002 at 11:41:13AM -0700, Walter Landry wrote:
> Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > OTOH, "preferred form of the work for making modifications to it" is not
> > always the same thing as "original source form of the work", because
> > *preferences* are subjective. I may r
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> * This is a license, not a law.
> * This text should go without saying, but it doesn't if you read various
> judicial decisions on copyright.
> * It's here as a reminder to copyright holders that they serve the
> public, not the other way around.
>
On Wed, 2002-06-12 at 16:51, Branden Robinson wrote:
> I think we want a license that permits educators to photcopy a
> DFCL-licensed document at will and distribute it to their classes, no
> matter how large they are (many undergraduate courses in U.S. schools
> have hundreds of subscribers, which
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 1) We don't want to tell Professor Smith that he's in violation because
> he printed out a DFCL-licensed document, but the font in his laser
> printer is proprietary to, say, Hewlett-Packard (or Adobe). He then
> makes a dozen copies for his grad stude
On Thu, Jun 13, 2002 at 11:42:06AM -0700, Walter Landry wrote:
> > * No condition of this license shall be construed in such a way as to
> > challenge or prohibit reverse-engineering or any Fair Use exception to
> > copyright law.
>
> Please don't do something like that. The DMCA has somethin
On Thu, Jun 13, 2002 at 11:41:13AM -0700, Walter Landry wrote:
> You have modified the original such that the preferred form for
> modifications has changed. People do this all the time (e.g. recoding
> a Perl project in Python). I don't think that there is any ambiguity
> here.
I agree. While w
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 12, 2002 at 03:57:50PM -0700, Walter Landry wrote:
> > Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jun 12, 2002 at 03:10:25PM -0700, Walter Landry wrote:
> > > > I think that once we get into this kind of large scale copying,
>
Nick Phillips <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> OK, let's take a more likely scenario. Alice writes a manifesto for Free
> Software. Bob subtly edits it to become a manifesto for Open Source. If Bob
> says "Document edited by Bob, based on an original by Alice. (c) Alice 1999,
> (c) Bob 2002", then it i
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> OTOH, "preferred form of the work for making modifications to it" is not
> always the same thing as "original source form of the work", because
> *preferences* are subjective. I may receive a copylefted document in
> LaTeX format, but because I'm not com
On Thu, Jun 13, 2002 at 12:16:56PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 12, 2002 at 09:56:13PM -0700, Ben Pfaff wrote:
> > If the original image is an XCF that takes advantage of features,
> > like layers, that PNG does not support, then sure I'd ideally
> > want the original XCF if I was g
On Thu, Jun 13, 2002 at 11:02:53PM +1200, Nick Phillips wrote:
> > I think this boils down to a requirement for a stronger notification
> > than just "this document is derived from that document". Perhaps
> > add "... and is not necessarily a fair representation of the thoughts,
> > experiences, a
On Wed, Jun 12, 2002 at 11:40:44PM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> It is much easier for me to --- for example --- hide an exploitable
> buffer overflow in Apache than it is to hide something in a document.
Oh, I don't know about that. Ponder the wisdom of Ethan Benson:
"The best place to hid
On Wed, Jun 12, 2002 at 09:56:13PM -0700, Ben Pfaff wrote:
> If the original image is an XCF that takes advantage of features,
> like layers, that PNG does not support, then sure I'd ideally
> want the original XCF if I was going to modify the icons.
> Similarly, some documents have features that g
On Wed, Jun 12, 2002 at 06:18:08PM -0700, Mark Rafn wrote:
> I read Branden's message as not wanting to put Debian's name on a license
> unless it is adequately and unambiguously free, and therefore always meets
> the DFSG, not that he wants to work around some flaw in the DFSG.
>
> The DFSG def
On Wed, Jun 12, 2002 at 03:07:01PM -0700, Walter Landry wrote:
> How about adding a section 3d) to the GPL with something like
>
> d) Only distribute 100 or fewer copies in a 30 day time period.
>
> That weakens copyleft a bit, but prevents wholesale appropriation. Is
> this the sort of thin
On Thu, Jun 13, 2002 at 12:41:32PM +1200, Nick Phillips wrote:
> How about requiring that a URL from which the source of the document is
> available be included in printed forms of the document?
I want to cast the terms more broadly than that, since technology
changes and while it looks like the W
On Wed, Jun 12, 2002 at 04:21:50PM -0700, Mark Rafn wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Jun 2002, Branden Robinson wrote:
>
> > I sympathize with your concerns but I've having difficulty reconciling
> > '"Also, you can print this out and distribute it" would seem to weaken
> > the copyleft' with "Hi, your current
On Thu, 13 Jun 2002, Nick Phillips wrote:
>> The DFSG defines the spirit of the license we're looking for. A license
>> needs to be found/created that fits it, rather than modifying the DFSG to
>> fit some license.
> Exactly. The spirit. I'm not advocating that anyone should lightly consider
>
On Wed, Jun 12, 2002 at 03:57:50PM -0700, Walter Landry wrote:
> Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 12, 2002 at 03:10:25PM -0700, Walter Landry wrote:
> > > I think that once we get into this kind of large scale copying,
> > > requiring people to offer machine readable sour
On Thu, Jun 13, 2002 at 01:00:14PM +0300, Richard Braakman wrote:
> I guess you did not read the referenced paper :)
Not this time, but have done before.
> The whole point of that trojan was that it would be _invisible_ to anyone
> who looks only at source code. It hides in the compiler executa
On Thu, Jun 13, 2002 at 04:22:18PM +1200, Nick Phillips wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 12, 2002 at 11:40:44PM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> > It is much easier for me to --- for example --- hide an exploitable
> > buffer overflow in Apache than it is to hide something in a document.
>
> It's clear to a
On Wed, Jun 12, 2002 at 06:18:08PM -0700, Mark Rafn wrote:
> I read Branden's message as not wanting to put Debian's name on a license
> unless it is adequately and unambiguously free, and therefore always meets
> the DFSG, not that he wants to work around some flaw in the DFSG.
> The DFSG defi
Joe Wreschnig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Requiring the original source for documents is like requiring XCFs for
> e.g. all the GNOME icons. I'm sure they're all stored as XCF's
> originally, not PNGs. Yet no one complains, because PNG is an open
> format, editable with free tools. But by the lo
On Wed, Jun 12, 2002 at 11:40:44PM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> > No, it's because it's possible to make subtle changes to a document that
> > will *completely* alter its function, which is much harder (usually),
> > with software.
>
> It is much easier for me to --- for example --- hide an
On Wed, 2002-06-12 at 20:55, Nick Phillips wrote:
> No, it's because it's possible to make subtle changes to a document that
> will *completely* alter its function, which is much harder (usually),
> with software.
It is much easier for me to --- for example --- hide an exploitable
buffer overflow
On Wed, 2002-06-12 at 20:54, Walter Landry wrote:
> The GPL already has a means for dealing with things like this. If you
> distribute executables, you are required to distribute everything to
> make that executable except for what is normally found with the OS.
> If you can't, because you're not
On Wed, 2002-06-12 at 20:54, Walter Landry wrote:
> If the license doesn't require source, then the license is no longer
> copyleft.
I don't think you understood my point.
For software, yes, where the source code is (by definition) the
preferred format for human-editing. However, for documents, y
Nick Phillips <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 12, 2002 at 05:34:36PM -0700, Mark Rafn wrote:
>
> > Here we're getting to the crux of #3. Why is it harder to misrepresent
> > someone with software than with documents? Is it simply that it's easier
> > to modify a document, so the freedom
Joe Wreschnig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Something else I thought of that the license may wish to address. Right
> now, the Debian autobook package is non-free, despite it being in a
> non-proprietary format, and under a free license. This is because it was
> generated from LaTeX source with late
> On Wed, Jun 12, 2002 at 04:06:39PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > I'm not comfortable with calling this license the "Debian Free Content
> > License" -- or the "Debian" anything, for that matter -- if the license
> > can be exercised in such a way that the work isn't DFSG-free.
On Thu, 13 J
On Wed, Jun 12, 2002 at 05:34:36PM -0700, Mark Rafn wrote:
> Here we're getting to the crux of #3. Why is it harder to misrepresent
> someone with software than with documents? Is it simply that it's easier
> to modify a document, so the freedom is expected to be used by a wider
> variety of pe
On Wed, Jun 12, 2002 at 04:06:39PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> To spell this out a little more clearly:
>
> I'm not comfortable with calling this license the "Debian Free Content
> License" -- or the "Debian" anything, for that matter -- if the license
> can be exercised in such a way that t
On Wed, Jun 12, 2002 at 04:21:50PM -0700, Mark Rafn wrote:
> True. It's also an objection I didn't list in my 3. The GPL makes it
> hard to legally do ad-hoc distribution in non-source form. Making
> exceptions here doesn't bother me a lot, as printed text is easier to
> reverse-engineer tha
Joe Wreschnig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> How about making it compatible with the GPL?
/cheer
On 12 Jun 2002, Joe Wreschnig wrote:
> I would like to see some way to mark sections unmodifiable but
> removable/renamable, e.g. acknowledgements or dedications, at the very
> least.
Start with "why is th
Something else I thought of that the license may wish to address. Right
now, the Debian autobook package is non-free, despite it being in a
non-proprietary format, and under a free license. This is because it was
generated from LaTeX source with latex2html, and without the source it
has to be in no
On Wed, 2002-06-12 at 15:45, Walter Landry wrote:
> However, even this doesn't accomplish your aim. If I can remove the
> section, then I can still replace it with something that the original
> author might be horrified at. You really have to get used to the idea
> that people can modify it in wa
On Wed, 2002-06-12 at 15:53, Jeff Licquia wrote:
> So it seems to me that it would be useful to have a documentation
> license that was more strict about attribution.
Thanks; this got my mind onto a much better idea than the old one. :)
See my reply to Branden.
--
- Joe Wreschnig <[EMAIL PROTECT
On Wed, 2002-06-12 at 15:32, Branden Robinson wrote:
> However, an Invariant section, even if severable, still has DFSG
> problems.
>
> Copyright notices, license text, and something akin to the FDL 1.2
> draft's "endorsements" are about as far as I'm willing to go. For
> arbitrary invariant sect
On Wed, 12 Jun 2002, Branden Robinson wrote:
> I sympathize with your concerns but I've having difficulty reconciling
> '"Also, you can print this out and distribute it" would seem to weaken
> the copyleft' with "Hi, your current license means I can't print out the
> documentation and give people
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 12, 2002 at 03:10:25PM -0700, Walter Landry wrote:
> > I think that once we get into this kind of large scale copying,
> > requiring people to offer machine readable source is not too onerous.
> > Otherwise, it isn't really a copyleft anymor
1 - 100 of 114 matches
Mail list logo
