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

Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Whatever. If fiat is legitimate, that is. I'm not sure what your point > is. A rose is a rose is a rose. DFSG 3 contains absolutely no > implication of the existence of any exception to its terms. You steadfastly want to skip that little word "so

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

Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Sat, Dec 01, 2001 at 07:05:10PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: > > I thought there was general agreement that a proportional limit was > > better than a simple number. > > Maybe this is how you feel, but I so far haven't seen general agreement

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

[-policy and emacs maintainers not cc'ed] On Sun, Dec 02, 2001 at 12:03:09AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > On Sun, Dec 02, 2001 at 02:14:51PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > > On Sat, Dec 01, 2001 at 05:51:29PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > > > [Debian Policy group: I am not sure if the Debian

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

On Sat, Dec 01, 2001 at 10:52:04PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: > You steadfastly want to skip that little word "software". It's the > Debian free *software* guidelines, and if your goal is to be > literalistic, then you can't appeal to the DF *Software* G to argue > about things which are n

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

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 it at all. We don't need a mandate. The US Congress is (theoretically) limited to the enumerated powers given in the US Constitution, but

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

On Sat, Dec 01, 2001 at 10:56:39PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: > But then say: "My goal is going to include the exclusion of the > following GNU packages". Come right out and say it--and then see if > people are willing to go along! I can't honestly say that because I don't know for sure t

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

On Sun, Dec 02, 2001 at 05:04:32PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > On Sun, Dec 02, 2001 at 12:03:09AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > > On Sun, Dec 02, 2001 at 02:14:51PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > > > On Sat, Dec 01, 2001 at 05:51:29PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > > > > [Debian Policy group:

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

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 it at all. > > We don't need a mandate. The US Congress

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

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: How about a new section "[partially free]"?

Hi, Branden! On Sunday, 2. December 2001 06:26, Branden Robinson wrote: > In my opinion, "Non-Abhorrent Non-Free Software" is a cause > best undertaken by a project other than Debian. I did not mean that there is any non-abhorrent non-free software. As I understand it, a package that makes it in

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

> > 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: How about a new section "[partially free]"?

On Sun, Dec 02, 2001 at 10:19:55AM +0100, Thomas Uwe Gruettmueller wrote: > As I understand it, a package that makes it into [main] complies > to all points of the DFSG. However, your proposal will allow > packages that don't fully comply the DFSG to enter [main], if > the violation is not too g

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

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

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 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

Questions about packaging 'crank'.

Hey, I came acros this tool called 'crank'. It's short for CRypto ANalysis toolKit, and it does just that. It analyses crypted text and tries to decrypt it. It only supports 'classic ciphers', and I don't really know if this should go in non-us or not. Could someone please check this out and tel

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

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: How about a new section "[partially free]"?

On Sun, Dec 02, 2001 at 04:11:04AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > On Sun, Dec 02, 2001 at 10:19:55AM +0100, Thomas Uwe Gruettmueller wrote: > Interpret DFSG 3 > *THAT* strictly and there wouldn't be much left *in* Debian. Just > public domain materials. We may as well just fold up shop and qui

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

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 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 09:34:22PM +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: How about a new section "[partially free]"?

On Sun, Dec 02, 2001 at 06:55:52PM +0100, Bernd Warken wrote: > That's absolutely true. Public domain is very dangerous. During the > 1970s, Unix was public domain. That is false. > So a copyright is necessary to have a legal protection. Otherwise, the > wolves and pigs will eat your free pack

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

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

"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

* 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

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: LDP in main?

For the benefit of debian-legal: David Merrill, the Linux Documentation Project coordinator, e-mailed me recently with concerns about the LDP documents (doc-linux-html and doc-linux-text, plus the various translations) being in non-free. I'm forwarding on the most recent mail in that discussion, an

Re: LDP in main?

On Sun, 2 Dec 2001 at 16:48:03 -0500, David Merrill wrote: > On Sun, Dec 02, 2001 at 08:14:22PM +, Colin Watson wrote: > > Would you mind if I forwarded this e-mail of mine on to -legal? It seems > > as good a place as any to start the discussion. > > Please do. I would like to be part of that

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 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: LDP in main?

On Sun, Dec 02, 2001 at 03:48:41PM -0600, Colin Watson wrote: > On Sun, 2 Dec 2001 at 16:48:03 -0500, David Merrill wrote: > > On Sun, Dec 02, 2001 at 08:14:22PM +, Colin Watson wrote: > > > Would you mind if I forwarded this e-mail of mine on to -legal? It seems > > > as good a place as any to

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 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: LDP in main?

On Sun, Dec 02, 2001 at 09:30:41PM +, Colin Watson wrote: > For the benefit of debian-legal: David Merrill, the Linux Documentation > Project coordinator, e-mailed me recently with concerns about the LDP > documents (doc-linux-html and doc-linux-text, plus the various > translations) being in n

Re: LDP in main?

On Sun, Dec 02, 2001 at 03:48:41PM -0600, Colin Watson wrote: > On Sun, 2 Dec 2001 at 16:48:03 -0500, David Merrill wrote: > > On Sun, Dec 02, 2001 at 08:14:22PM +, Colin Watson wrote: > > > You're right, of course, although there has been a lot of discussion > > > recently about how the DFSG s

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: PROPOSED: interpretive guidelines regarding DFSG 3, modifiability, and invariant text

> This is not a very serious issue, since it isn't hard to rewrite a > small amount of text. You can also refer to it with a hypertext link > instead of copying it. s/\/code/ Would you still feel the same way? Text and code are very different--I'm not even sure what it would

Re: PROPOSED: interpretive guidelines regarding DFSG 3, modifiability, and invariant text

Why does is this answer not sufficient in the case of software? When the noxious BSD advertising clause was under consideration, this kind of argument was no good. The problem with the BSD advertising clause had to do with the special situation of advertisements--for instance, the l

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: LDP in main?

On Sun, Dec 02, 2001 at 06:11:24PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > On Sun, Dec 02, 2001 at 03:48:41PM -0600, Colin Watson wrote: > > On Sun, 2 Dec 2001 at 16:48:03 -0500, David Merrill wrote: > > > On Sun, Dec 02, 2001 at 08:14:22PM +, Colin Watson wrote: > > > > You're right, of course, altho

Re: How about a new section "[partially free]"?

Hi, Branden! On Sunday, 2. December 2001 10:11, Branden Robinson wrote: > On Sun, Dec 02, 2001 at 10:19:55AM +0100, Thomas Uwe Gruettmueller wrote: > > As I understand it, a package that makes it into [main] > > complies to all points of the DFSG. However, your proposal > > will allow packages th

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

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: > 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: LDP in main?

Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Hey, wait, I thought actual, real-world instances of documentation with > licensing issues was a bunch of smoke I cooked up to promote my > monomanical enterprise. Damn, it's actually got merit. Really ruins my > day. What *are* you talking about?

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

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 06:38:56PM -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: How about a new section "[partially free]"?

On Mon, Dec 03, 2001 at 03:53:34AM +0100, Thomas Uwe Gruettmueller wrote: > However, I don't think your proposal is sufficient: For example, > a manual that contains an invariant (and thus unremovable) > section stating: "Drink alcohol!" or "Satan wants you!", this > will pass your rules, becaus

Re: LDP in main?

On Sun, Dec 02, 2001 at 06:46:43PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: > The smoke you are making up is the smoke that a test calling for > judgment is one that Debian developers are somehow to stoopid or > fulish to be able to implement well. Ah, thanks; it's always good to get the false accusatio