Re: Documentation licenses (GFDL discussion on debian-legal)

On Wed, Dec 04, 2002 at 11:18:08PM +0100, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña wrote: > Please read what the FSF has to say about this: > > "When should a section be invariant? First of all, keep in mind that a > section that treats technical material cannot be invariant. Only a > secondary section can

Re: EULAs and the DFSG

On Wed, Dec 04, 2002 at 08:04:29PM +, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote: > It looks to me like a possible case of being free but not > distributable by Debian: because anyone distributing it would have to > make people agree to the EULA, which would mean you couldn't just put > it on an ftp server or

Re: Documentation licenses (GFDL discussion on debian-legal)

Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Wed, Dec 04, 2002 at 10:01:28PM -0500, David Turner wrote: > >>> Licensing aside, why would (and should) Debian distribute famous novels? >>> An installer for famous novels (c.f. gutenbook), sure, but why the >>> novels themselves? > >> Because pe

Re: Hardware license

Scripsit David Turner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > On Wed, 2002-12-04 at 18:58, Henning Makholm wrote: > > I throw away the source CD and then start selling the binary discs > > from my retail store. My poor customers will be left with binaries and > > no way to get source, much contrary to the intention

Re: Documentation licenses (GFDL discussion on debian-legal)

On Thu, Dec 05, 2002 at 07:32:21PM +1100, Herbert Xu wrote: > > On Wed, Dec 04, 2002 at 10:01:28PM -0500, David Turner wrote: > >>> Licensing aside, why would (and should) Debian distribute famous novels? > >>> An installer for famous novels (c.f. gutenbook), sure, but why the > >>> novels themsel

Hardware license (status)

> We've been putting together some robot-related software and hardware. We > want to release this with a DFSG-compliant license set. For the > software, GPL, no problems. For the hardware we propose to include .pcb > files for pcb, .sch files for gschem, and .asm files for the PIC > firmware. What

Re: Hardware license

Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Thomas Uwe Gruettmueller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Monday 02 December 2002 21:04, Walter Landry wrote: > > > Rich Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > http://www.opencores.org/OIPC/OHGPL.shtml. > > > > > > The OpenIPCore license is a more of

Proposed documentation on this issue (was Re: Documentation licenses (GFDL discussion on debian-legal))

Many of you are already aware (me included but I have not participated/read all the relevant threads) that this horse might have been beaten to death in as many threads over the years. However there is not a single place that summarises all this information and shows the "official" (Debian's as o

Re: Documentation licenses (GFDL discussion on debian-legal)

Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña wrote: > Then please remove the GPL from all debian packages, and make non-free > all those that include it. Or can the GPL be modified, can it be changed > at will? No. Does it make it non-free: NO. Could you do us all a favour and save our time by not draggin

Re: Documentation licenses (GFDL discussion on debian-legal)

On Thu, 2002-12-05 at 02:32, Herbert Xu wrote: > Why are we distributing the bible then? > > bible-kjv-text - King James Version of the Bible - text and concordance Because we have bible-kjv, a program that browses it. The bible, besides being a excellent source of statistical information about t

Re: EULAs and the DFSG

On Thu, Dec 05, 2002 at 04:56:10AM +0100, Sunnanvind Fenderson wrote: > Jakob Bohm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Click agree to accept this license and the lack of warranty. > > Click decline to not use, copy or distribute this software. > > The main problem is that that's simply not true - you

Re: FSF has published GNU FDL version 1.2

On Wed, Dec 04, 2002 at 02:00:08PM -0800, Walter Landry wrote: > > Your broad definition of "technical measures to obstruct or control > > the reading or further copying of the copies" would prevent me from > > keeping a GFDL-licensed work locked in my house: the doors and locks > > obstruct readin

Re: EULAs and the DFSG

On Thu, Dec 05, 2002 at 07:20:47PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote: > Ah. I see your confusion now. You really can't legally use the > software without accepting the license, but the GPL imposes no > conditions upon your acceptance of paragraph 0 which grants you usage > rights. You could call this p

Re: EULAs and the DFSG

Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Thu, Dec 05, 2002 at 04:56:10AM +0100, Sunnanvind Fenderson wrote: >> This is very different from EULAs because with them the end user gets >> *less* rights that normally given by copyright > > The rights normally given by copyright are virtually ni

Re: Documentation licenses (GFDL discussion on debian-legal)

On Thu, Dec 05, 2002 at 09:15:42AM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote: > > > Why are we distributing the bible then? > > > bible-kjv-text - King James Version of the Bible - text and concordance > > - It's been argued that this particular text is useful as data employed > by programs So all you need

Re: Documentation licenses (GFDL discussion on debian-legal)

On Fri, Dec 06, 2002 at 07:20:59AM +1100, Herbert Xu wrote: > > - No one's gotten worked up enough about having *one* such text in the > > archive to request its removal. Abusing this precedent by uploading > > dozens of books to the archive is much more likely to result in a > > response.

Re: Documentation licenses (GFDL discussion on debian-legal)

On Thu, Dec 05, 2002 at 02:23:14PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Fri, Dec 06, 2002 at 07:20:59AM +1100, Herbert Xu wrote: > > > > - No one's gotten worked up enough about having *one* such text in the > > > archive to request its removal. Abusing this precedent by uploading > > > dozens o

Re: Documentation licenses (GFDL discussion on debian-legal)

Joe Wreschnig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Thu, 2002-12-05 at 02:32, Herbert Xu wrote: >> Why are we distributing the bible then? >> >> bible-kjv-text - King James Version of the Bible - text and concordance > > Because we have bible-kjv, a program that browses it. The bible, besides That'

Re: Documentation licenses (GFDL discussion on debian-legal)

On Thu, 2002-12-05 at 14:41, Herbert Xu wrote: > Joe Wreschnig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > On Thu, 2002-12-05 at 02:32, Herbert Xu wrote: > >> Why are we distributing the bible then? > >> > >> bible-kjv-text - King James Version of the Bible - text and concordance > > > > Because we have

Re: Documentation licenses (GFDL discussion on debian-legal)

Joe Wreschnig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > That sentence existed within the context of a paragraph that explained > why the particular text of the bible was important (which is, IMO, the > reason that there was such a program designed around it and not some > other book). If someone wants to ada

Re: Documentation licenses (GFDL discussion on debian-legal)

On Thu, Dec 05, 2002 at 11:52:29AM -0600, Joe Wreschnig wrote: > Because we have bible-kjv, a program that browses it. The bible, besides > being a excellent source of statistical information about the languages > it has been translated into, is often used as a reference book, like an > encyclopedi

Re: Hardware license (status)

On Wednesday 04 December 2002 06:28 pm, Rich Walker wrote: > After interesting discussion on and off debian-legal, I'm now down to a > choice of one hardware license for everything except the firmware which > will be GPL'd. The hardware license is probably the OHGPL >

Re: Documentation licenses (GFDL discussion on debian-legal)

> > distributing documentation that does _not_ apply to documentation? Sample: > > > > - the Project gutenberg texts (not that their license is currently free) Actually, you can turn a gutenberg text into a free text merely by stripping the gutenberg prefix.

Re: Documentation licenses (GFDL discussion on debian-legal)

On Thu, 2002-12-05 at 15:22, Herbert Xu wrote: > Joe Wreschnig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > If, on the other hand, Debian developers don't have the common sense to > > realize what would be useful with such a program and what isn't, then > > I'll support removing it. But I'd like to give the proj

Re: Documentation licenses (GFDL discussion on debian-legal)

Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Wed, Dec 04, 2002 at 10:01:28PM -0500, David Turner wrote: > > >> Licensing aside, why would (and should) Debian distribute famous novels? > >> An installer for famous novels (c.f. gutenbook), sure, but why the > >> novels themselves? > > > Because

Re: License DSFG-free?

On [03/12/02 17:12], Steve Langasek wrote: > On Tue, Dec 03, 2002 at 08:12:50PM +0100, Christian Kurz wrote: > > So Michael (and neither I ;-) wouldn't mind changing the current > > license text to something else to keep the code in public domain. > *Software in the public domain does not require

Re: Documentation licenses (GFDL discussion on debian-legal)

On Thu, Dec 05, 2002 at 02:54:30PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: > > On Wed, Dec 04, 2002 at 10:01:28PM -0500, David Turner wrote: > > >> Licensing aside, why would (and should) Debian distribute famous novels? > > >> An installer for famous novels (c.f. gutenbook), sure, but why the > > >>

Re: Documentation licenses (GFDL discussion on debian-legal)

On Thursday 05 December 2002 02:52 pm, Joe Wreschnig wrote: > Advocating a policy of "don't upload every piece of data that exists" is > not censorship, it's common sense. Yes, I think it would be cool if I > could do 'apt-get install alice-in-wonderland'. I also think it would be > a waste of reso