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").
>
Summary:
Per recent discussion on the debian-legal mailing list regarding DFSG
section 3 and provisions of documentation-specific licenses that have
been developed in recent years, that allow for non-modifiable portions
of the work (such as the license text itself) and mandate the display of
certa
>> Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 1) A copyright holder is permitted to (withhold permission to modify or
> remove) (copyright notices) upon a work, or parts of a work, under
Parentheses indicate the way I'm parsing this. Am I wrong? This
concerns to "copyright notices", rig
> On Tue, Dec 11, 2001 at 10:54:18AM -0500, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
> > But I think including the URL in the package description would satisfy
> > the license.
>
> Are we to permit licensors to dictate to us the precise contents of our
> package descriptions? Should this be regarded as compatibl
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wednesday 12 December 2001 12:56, Branden Robinson wrote:
> 3) Works licensed under the GNU FDL meet the DFSG if:
>A) there are no Invariant Sections[*]; or
>B) the only Invariant Sections consist of license texts which
> apply to a w
Scripsit ichimunki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Wednesday 12 December 2001 12:56, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > 3) Works licensed under the GNU FDL meet the DFSG if:
> >A) there are no Invariant Sections[*]; or
> >B) the only Invariant Sections consist of license texts which
> > apply to a
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
On Wed, Dec 12, 2001 at 04:17:49PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Yeah. I wonder where all the bits about "individual good judgement
> must be used" went. It seems to me that Branden has reacted to the
> objections that too bright bright-line tests are not a good idea,
> simply by defining another
On Wed, Dec 12, 2001 at 08:55:49AM +0100, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote:
> >> Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > 1) A copyright holder is permitted to (withhold permission to modify or
> > remove) (copyright notices) upon a work, or parts of a work, under
>
> Parentheses indicate t
On Wed, Dec 12, 2001 at 08:15:23AM -0600, ichimunki wrote:
> So the crux of this proposal is that emacs (a signature piece in the history
> of the Free Software) at least be moved into non-free,
No, just the Emacs Manual. The editor itself does not appear to have
any license problems under this
On Wed, Dec 12, 2001 at 04:17:49PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Yeah. I wonder where all the bits about "individual good judgement
> must be used" went. It seems to me that Branden has reacted to the
> objections that too bright bright-line tests are not a good idea,
> simply by defining another
On Wed, Dec 12, 2001 at 11:19:45AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> In any event, RMS has asserted that he is not going to change how the
> Emacs Manual is licensed. We could decree that the GNU Emacs Manual, as
> presently licensed under the GNU FDL, is DFSG-Free, and you *still*
> wouldn't have
I agree with the content of this proposal. I found it hard to read and
understand, however. I'm still thinking of ways to change the wording.
At least I suggest to change "A copyright holder is permitted to withhold
permission to..." to "A license need not grant permission to...". This
way it ta
Scripsit Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Wed, Dec 12, 2001 at 04:17:49PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > Yeah. I wonder where all the bits about "individual good judgement
> > must be used" went. It seems to me that Branden has reacted to the
> > objections that too bright bright-line
On Wed, Dec 12, 2001 at 07:12:51PM +0200, Richard Braakman wrote:
> I agree with the content of this proposal. I found it hard to read and
> understand, however. I'm still thinking of ways to change the wording.
> At least I suggest to change "A copyright holder is permitted to withhold
> permiss
Henning Makholm said:
> I think I would be satisfied if we added something like
>
> 3) If a copyright holder withholds permission to modify or remove
>other texts of a non-technical nature, the merits of including
>the work in Debian must be considered on a case-by-case basis.
>As a g
Richard Braakman said:
> I would also support a variant that allows some non-modifiable text,
> as long as it is [insert definition of non-technical], and as long
> as it can be removed. That way, we can distribute editorial text
> (such as the GNU Manifesto) if we want to, but it doesn't impact
On Tue, 11 Dec 2001, Jaldhar H. Vyas wrote:
> Local modification of this release is permitted as follows, or by
> mutual agreement: In order to reduce confusion and facilitate
> debugging, we request that locally modified versions be denoted by
> appending the letter "L" to the current version num
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> My proposal does not forbid the grandfathering of any particular package
> in main. It also doesn't forbid making exceptions in the future. It's
> an interpretive guideline. That means it's an analysis of how we
> (Debian) actually apply the DFSG c
"M. Drew Streib" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> It is somewhat easy to sympathize with the FSF in this matter, since the
> invariant text happens to be a free software manifesto, but what if
> the invariant text were something else? Do you really want to carry around
> invariant sections from every
On Wed, Dec 12, 2001 at 06:27:53PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> I think your Final Draft does a really good job of defining a class
> of Cases That Are Unarguably In The Clear.
I think it does more than that. Review Bruce Perens's last mail to this
list. He essentially tossed a stone tablet a
On Wed, Dec 12, 2001 at 11:12:51AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Yes, but before I (or others too, probably) want to approve any
> particular guideline, we might also want to know whether you support
> certain instances of grandfathering.
Why does that matter? I am only one voice.
I wrote
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Why does that matter? I am only one voice.
>
> I wrote my proposal in such a way as to attempt to be completely neutral
> about whether grandfathering might take place, or what might be
> grandfathered.
>
> If you find any indications of bias in it
Scripsit Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Wed, Dec 12, 2001 at 06:27:53PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > I think your Final Draft does a really good job of defining a class
> > of Cases That Are Unarguably In The Clear.
> I think it does more than that.
Probably.
> > My uneasiness i
Scripsit Jeremy Hankins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> This is what non-free is for, right? How is including the emacs docs
> "cuz we need it" different from including netscape back whene there
> weren't any free alternatives?
The emacs docs are ... docs. Netscape is/was, or at least purports to
be, a pr
On Wed, Dec 12, 2001 at 11:36:49AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> See, here's the problem.
>
> You make a proposal with very hard bright-line tests. When people say
> "that's too strict, what about special cases", you say "oh, these are
> just *guidelines*; we can still grandfather things o
On Wed, Dec 12, 2001 at 09:13:46PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > It implies that accepting them would not be consistent with past
> > practice.
>
> What about the past practise of including the Emacs manual in main?
What about it?
> > "In any event, my proposal does not forbid the grandfathe
A "Secondary Section" is a named appendix or a front-matter
section of the Document that deals exclusively with the
relationship of the publishers or authors of the Document to the
Document's overall subject (or to related matters) and contains
nothing that could fall directly within
Branden Robinson wrote:
> START OF PROPOSAL
>
> 1) A copyright holder is permitted to withhold permission to modify or
> remove copyright notices upon a work, or parts of a work, under
> copyright by that holder. Permission to modify or remove copyright
> notices not used as such (i.e., as exampl
On Wed, Dec 12, 2001 at 09:13:46PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > 3) Do you feel the Free Software Foundation deserves selective exemption
> > from the DFSG?
> No. Some of the software they produce may deserve it, though,
> independently of its being produced by the FSF.
Which is to say some so
On Wed, Dec 12, 2001 at 11:14:04AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Quite right. I think we should look at the statement, and decide on
> that basis whether we want to carry it.
So, if I write a manpage for, say, mutt, and include an essay about
how the GPL is a much better licenses than th
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> That's up to you. Whatever grandfathering procedure you come up with,
> you've got to sell it to the rest of the Project.
But it seems even more efficient to just oppose your proposal. Why
shouldn't I just do that?
I mean, if you want me to sign o
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, Dec 12, 2001 at 09:13:46PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > Let me just concur with Thomas Bushnell's latest comment to this.
>
> Which was?
Are you not bothering to read the thread?
Anthony Towns writes:
> And apart from these sorts of reasons, I can't see any good reason why
> we should acquiesce to RMS's demands for the FSF's docs, but not to
> J. Random Kid and his desire to push his views on the world too.
Why not look at whether the views being pushed are consonant wit
Anthony Towns writes:
> On Wed, Dec 12, 2001 at 11:14:04AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > Quite right. I think we should look at the statement, and decide on
> > that basis whether we want to carry it.
>
> So, if I write a manpage for, say, mutt, and include an essay about
> how the G
On Wed, Dec 12, 2001 at 06:31:04PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> The manual then goes in debian-political. I insist that
> debian-political would still belong in main, but it might perhaps be a
> good idea to prohibit other main packages from depending on it; they
> would be required to onl
On Wed, Dec 12, 2001 at 06:21:02PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> But it seems even more efficient to just oppose your proposal. Why
> shouldn't I just do that?
Be my guest. If it's just too much bother for you to participate in a
constructive, collaborative process, then I guess attemptin
37 matches
Mail list logo
