On Thu, 21 Aug 2003 00:09:54 -0500
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Part 1. DFSG-freeness of the GNU Free Documentation License 1.2
>
> Please mark with an "X" the item that most closely approximates your
> opinion. Mark only one.
>
> [ X ] The GNU Free Documentation License,
On Fri, 22 Aug 2003 09:51:39 -0500
John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 2. If DFSG should apply to documentation, what should be the disposition of
> GFDL according to DFSG? (This is the question you asked.)
>
> I don't think that the answer to question two can be relevant unless we have
> e
On Fri, 22 Aug 2003 10:14:31 -0500
John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I suggest that even if the GFDL did not allow modification of the invariant
> sections, if it at least allowed removal of them, we would be in much better
> shape. It would, for instance, allow people to better take the m
On Fri, 22 Aug 2003 14:11:07 -0500
John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > addresses the problems which affect all GFDL documents: the
> > requirements for transparent formats, and the "anti-DMCA" clause (the
> > ban on technical access control measures). It also doesn't
>
> That doesn't seem
On Fri, 22 Aug 2003 16:25:27 -0400
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian T. Sniffen) wrote:
> David B Harris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Less likely, though I certainly wouldn't say it's impossible, is a judge
> > ruling that without providing electricity, a working compu
On Sun, 24 Aug 2003 16:54:53 -0500
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If "make or" were stricken, and perhaps some clarification added to
> ensure that secure transport channels between distributor and
> distributee were not a problem, this particular problem might go away.
I disagree,
On Tue, 26 Aug 2003 00:55:05 +0900 (IRKST)
Fedor Zuev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Aug 2003, Josselin Mouette wrote:
>
> JM>> the freedom of _users_ and _authors_. It is in the best interest of
> JM>> users to receive unstripped version of manual. It is also in the
> JM>> best interest
On Wed, 27 Aug 2003 17:11:57 +0900 (IRKST)
Fedor Zuev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>Exactly, I still not see any non-stupid demonstration of the
> >> contrary. I prefer not to state anything else.
>
> >My $HOME is on an encrypted filesystem. If I have any GFDL
> >documents on that filesystem,
On Thu, 28 Aug 2003 08:51:36 +0900 (IRKST)
Fedor Zuev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >"of the copies you *make or distribute*"
> >
> >Emphasis mine. The language is pretty clear.
>
> ---/text/dossie/gfdl/fdl.txt--
>
> You may copy and distribute the Document in any medium, either
> commerci
On 28 Aug 2003 03:22:47 +0100
Scott James Remnant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> -(which makes passes at compilers) written
> +(which makes passes at compilers) written
>
> the difference is in the trailing whitespace, but that's irrelevant.
>
> These changes were made to part of an Invariant sect
On 28 Aug 2003 03:50:16 +0100
Scott James Remnant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You now have a copy of the latest upstream documentation under the
> original DFSG-free licence, and entirely legally too.
I don't particularily condone this kind of "work-around". It goes
against the wishes of the cop
On Thu, 28 Aug 2003 02:50:09 -0400 (EDT)
Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It would be fair to say that Debian has decided that the GFDL is not
> free according to the DFSG. This opinion has only been getting
> stronger and more unified over time. However, there is a significant
> minori
On Thu, 28 Aug 2003 09:38:08 -0400 (EDT)
"Joe Moore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> David B Harris said:
> > Scott James Remnant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> -(which makes passes at compilers) written
> >> +(which makes passes at compilers) writt
On Sun, 31 Aug 2003 22:22:42 -0400
Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I, and, to a large extent, other members of this list, are concerned
> that, beyond the non-trivial freedom aspects, texts under the GFDL
> will begin to suffer the same fate that code licensed under the
>
On Thu, 04 Sep 2003 21:55:07 -0400
Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This clause has a direct effect on all users,
> restricting the use of e.g. encrypted filesystems.
>
> That's a new one on me. I don't think the GFDL restricts
> the use of encrypted filesystems.
I have ment
On Sat, 06 Sep 2003 13:08:14 -0400
Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> IIRC, the specific section that most people are refering to is:
>
>You may not use technical measures to obstruct or control the reading
>or further copying of the copies you make or distribute.
>
On Thu, 11 Sep 2003 17:30:22 +0200
Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > This license is from the Creative Commons at
> > http://creativecommons.org/license/results-one?license_code=by-sa&format=text
> > It is designed to apply to text or simila
On Thu, 11 Sep 2003 12:25:03 -0500
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Are you being sarcastic, pointing out the vagueness of the terms?
> > Many people edit PDFs directly (myself included on occasion).
>
> As have I, but I have had to resort to using non free tools on
> a non f
On Sat, 13 Sep 2003 09:57:31 -0400
Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I explained in a message here, a couple of months ago, that this
> > difference in wording does not really lead to a difference in
> > consequences.
>
> Um, yes it does. Importantly, it allows for m
On Tue, 16 Sep 2003 15:03:49 -0400
Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> They may cause practical
> > inconvenience for some kinds of uses, but no more than that. The
> > issue is basically the same as the issue of the preamble of the GPL.
>
> Yes, they do. They say "yo
On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 18:37:37 + (UTC)
Dylan Thurston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 2003-09-27, Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> I have occasionally received requests in private mail for some links
> >> to a document "summarizing Debian's position" on the GNU FDL as it
> >> rela
On Thu, 10 Jan 2002 12:26:19 +0100
Bram Moolenaar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> OK, I now understand that the company can be considered to be one
> licensee, thus passing copies around within the company is not
> distributing. Thus GPL'ed software can be modified for use inside the
> company. The
On Tue, 12 Feb 2002 09:46:36 +0100
Thomas Seyrat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> # BabelWeb should not be used as a lucrative tools without author
> # autorization.
>
> Except for the bad english, I do not know what to think about this :
> the point 6 of DFSG insists on the fact that the license
Tollef Fog Heen said:
> I am unsure if the license if free or not, its license follows (cc-ed to
> debian-legal, please keep me on the Cc list, since I'm not
> subscribed to -legal):
> * The copyright message which appears on screen when the game is
> run must continue to appear intact in
On Sun, 1 Sep 2002 16:01:53 -0500
John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Debian does not redact its mailing list archives.
>
> It seems from looking at the URL posted that this is an unusual
> situation -- the request is coming from someone whose e-mail address
> appears on the To: line of a
On 02 Sep 2002 01:33:54 -0700
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) wrote:
> David B Harris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > This probably just means that if they want to go after somebody,
> > they have to go after the person who posted the message and seek
> &g
On 04 Dec 2002 03:11:25 +0100
Sunnanvind Fenderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I started thinking on the Apple license again. Unlike the GPL, which
> is a copyright license, it appears to be an end user license agreement
> which you have to agree with "prior to downloading the code" or
> something
On Sat, 14 Dec 2002 01:51:59 -0500
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Steven Barker) wrote:
> I'd like the advice of this list as to whether data under that license
> would be DFSG free. I think the license is a pretty straightforward
> copyleft, though at least the translated version has some unclear
> language.
On 14 Dec 2002 03:08:03 -0500
Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Part 8, I'm sure, will cause problems - it has in the past, but I
> > can't remember in what context; it may just be that some zealots
> > made some hubub a while back that. I don't really recall.
>
> I can't manage to
On Tue, 28 Jan 2003 18:50:17 +0100
Daniel Bonniot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What can we do with the www.distributedfolding.org software, which is
> under this license (http://www.distributedfolding.org/license.html):
It's not DFSG-free, for one. The first paragraph fails DFSG #6; it only
grant
On Mon, 12 May 2003 22:08:08 +0200
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jérôme Marant) wrote:
> Peter S Galbraith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > I agree with all your points. I think we should move forward moving
> > those docs to non-free. It'll mean a few packages from non-free on
> > my systems, but if that
On Tue, 13 May 2003 09:52:16 +0200 (CEST)
Jérôme Marant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm talking about documentation which comes with free software from
> GNU. You deliberately removed the last part of my message, and that's
> make your reply even more trollish.
Frankly, the second part of your me
On Tue, 13 May 2003 09:45:57 +0200 (CEST)
Jérôme Marant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> En réponse à David B Harris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> > > As long as I am a GNU Emacs user, I object to see the Emacs manual
> > > going to non-free. Currently, it is provide
On Tue, 13 May 2003 20:38:51 +0200
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jérôme Marant) wrote:
> Could we consider some invariant sections as "non-problematic"?
Invariant sections aren't the only part of the license that's
problematic, they're just the most obscene. So far, I've seen them used
in a way that I found
On Tue, 13 May 2003 22:26:32 +0200
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jérôme Marant) wrote:
> > Agreed. I doubt anyone will be motivated enough to write a
> > Free typesetting application ... oh, wait.
> >
> > I doubt anyone will be motivated enough to write a robust set of
> > graphics drivers for *nix ... oh, wa
On Tue, 13 May 2003 22:33:38 +0200
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jérôme Marant) wrote:
> > You're asking us to keep non-Free documentation in main. The
> > difference between that and asking to "include components in main"
> > is irrelevant and a lawyer's point.
>
> Again, you do consider DFSG applies to doc
On Tue, 13 May 2003 23:52:20 +0200
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jérôme Marant) wrote:
> It is relevant because RMS is Emacs's project leader, so he is
> this upstream we have to bargain with, isn't he?
It is not relevant to the question, "is Emacs documentation Free?"
That's entirely based on the licens
On Tue, 13 May 2003 23:35:10 +0200
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jérôme Marant) wrote:
> Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > So does this mean I can include my shareware fonts and my
> > for-educational-use-only documentation in my next package upload?
> > The software is free, so I guess it's
On Tue, 13 May 2003 23:40:52 +0200
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jérôme Marant) wrote:
> > How about all the various non-GFDL-licensed documentation? There
> > certainly is a lot of it, and much of it is Free. Take a look at the
> > LDP.
> >
> > And assuming that what drives people to write Free Software is
>
On Wed, 14 May 2003 16:40:13 +0200 (CEST)
Jérôme Marant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > It seems obvious to you that documentation is software. It is
> > > not to me. Simply.
> >
> > That's fine, but does that mean that you think it's okay for them to
> > be
> > non-Free in some form or anoth
On Wed, 14 May 2003 18:39:10 +0200 (CEST)
Jérôme Marant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > It also depends on your definition of 'free', of course. What's
> > yours?
>
> What's the definition of free documentation?
In the context of Debian, the DFSG pretty much says it all. Freedom to
modify, freedo
On Sat, 24 May 2003 19:19:50 -0400
Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> A political essay is (typically) written by certain persons to
> persuade the public of a certain position. If it is modified, it does
> not do its job. So it makes sense, socially, to say that these cannot
> be modi
On Mon, 9 Jun 2003 20:10:39 +0200
Klaus Reimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm not a lawyer so I don't know if this text is good enough. Also I'm
> not a native english-speaker so maybe this is not really good english.
> So I would be glad about improvements of the above text.
The text looks good
On Tue, 10 Jun 2003 12:28:31 +1000 (EST)
Matthew Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Well, what do they want to allow, and what don't they want to allow?
> >
> > I think it's pretty clear they're looking for a Sleepycat arrangement;
> > free for Free Software, go to them if you want alternate
On 13 Jun 2003 01:15:38 +0200
Joachim Breitner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > 5) The freedom to retain privacy in one's person, effects, and data,
> >including, but not limited to, all Works in one's possession and one's
> >own changes to Works written by others.
>
> Isn't that effectively
On Thu, 12 Jun 2003 16:21:35 -0500
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Comments?
One thing I don't think that's entirely clear is about the labelling of
your changes. The GPL specifies that you must put a notice in a given
file detailing the date and nature of the changes.
Such may or m
On Fri, 13 Jun 2003 01:10:23 +0100
Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 12, 2003 at 04:21:35PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > 4) The freedom to change the Work for any purpose[1], to distribute
> >one's changes, and to distribute the Work in modified form. Access
> >
I was mildly confused with Branden's response to my message, and I've
been asked by two other people privately what the conclusion of the
"debate" was, so I'll just summarise quickly here the discussion Branden
and myself had on IRC. I checked with Branden, and he's perfectly happy
with the summary
On Fri, 13 Jun 2003 18:02:56 -0400
Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> my question>
>
> I intend to make the effort some day, but first I have to finish GPL
> version 3, which faces other difficult questions.
There have been some statements made by people who weren't part of the
FSF as
On Mon, 16 Jun 2003 13:57:11 -0400
Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> That was one question. The other, and more important, question was:
>
> "Do you happen to have any idea as to how much time will be given for
> community review?"
>
> Please remember that this is not a c
On Sun Jul 06, 03:07am -0400, Michael D. Crawford wrote:
> I just submitted an article entitled "Which License for Free
> Documentation?" to http://advogato.org/
>
> I have several documents that are licensed under the GFDL. While I'm not
> sure I agree with your position about the GFDL, I can
On Wed, 23 Jul 2003 11:36:03 +0200
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (A Mennucc1) wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 23, 2003 at 05:29:13AM -0400, David B Harris wrote:
> > On Wed, 23 Jul 2003 10:21:25 +0200
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (A Mennucc1) wrote:
> > > this is a call for help
> > >
> >
On Wed, 23 Jul 2003 11:28:36 -0400
Jeremy Hankins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Sergey V. Spiridonov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > It is clear for me, why FDL appears: it is needed to help technical
> > writers earn money by writing free documentation for free software
> > and to help publish
On Thu, 31 Jul 2003 12:13:12 -0500
John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> As the discussion about FDL and the RFCs continues, I have seen various
> people attempt to disect the DFSG, or to redefine "software" in a highly
> loose manner, or to question DFSG's applicability to non-software items.
On Fri, 01 Aug 2003 01:40:56 -0700
Brian Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I don't think that this is even necessary. Suppose, for example, we
> chose to solve the documentation problem by creating a new archive
> section for documentation. Documentation that meets the DFSG would
> preferably s
55 matches
Mail list logo
