g if I tried to create an XOcaml?
(Note that the source+patches problem itself is addressed by DFSG#4,
though obviously not in the way I would like.)
Richard Braakman
ts back your
own credibility. Pointing out unintended consequences is a time-honored
way of getting authors to change their licenses.
That you don't *agree* with Sven's interpretation doesn't mean you get
to accuse him of dishonesty.
Richard Braakman
icense permits binary-only distribution, you have to allow
this for derived works you publish as well.
Richard Braakman
On Sat, Aug 21, 2004 at 01:29:51PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> Richard Braakman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Thu, Aug 19, 2004 at 02:09:52PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> >> * I can't fork the code, even distributing as patches. There's n
> [ X ] I am a Debian Developer as described in the Debian
> Constitution as of the date on this survey.
>
> === CUT HERE ===
Richard Braakman
pgpK3B0RMd74Y.pgp
Description: PGP signature
uses any part of your report to also include your very personal
opinion about the original version. And here I thought it was
very personal :) Why would you require this?
Richard Braakman
censes
The "GPL", "BSD", and "Artistic" licenses are examples of licenses that
we consider "free".
Richard Braakman
it must be source code." That is incorrect reasoning. You
> must first establish that there is source or compiled work, and *then* apply
> the guidelines for source or compiled works to it.
The Emacs manual has clear source and binary forms. What do you think
makeinfo does? If you want to
On Sun, Aug 24, 2003 at 06:22:13PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 24, 2003 at 03:25:48PM +0300, Richard Braakman wrote:
> > On Sun, Aug 24, 2003 at 12:39:04AM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
> > > > Yet we do routinely apply the DFSG to interpreted scripts where
ummary), you only need the text.
But to make a new edition with some spelling errors fixed, you
definitely need the source.
(I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Are you claiming that
translations and summaries are all you'll want to do with documentation?)
Richard Braakman
uncement, your work based on
the Program is not required to print an announcement.)
Richard Braakman
eans.
Can you substantiate that? I don't remember any such ridicule.
Richard Braakman
ttle inside a car will grant Soft Drink
Producer, Inc. the right to use that car's windows to display
advertising banners", and a UCITA-like law that makes that
a valid contract.)
Richard Braakman
On Wed, Aug 27, 2003 at 03:51:53PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Um, where in the world can *ideas* be copyrightable?
Utah :-)
Richard Braakman
t; is overused by our enemies, the ones who want to take the
products of the human mind and sell then like sausages :)
Generic "free content" freedoms should probably apply to things like
musical performance as well, and I don't see these fitting very fell
for that.
Richard Braakman
ch I'm too sleepy to investigate
now: were any of these manuals already under the GFDL in woody?
Richard Braakman
ch means we have more people to convince.
If you get impatient, I suggest collecting some of the FAQ-like
documents that were posted and referenced here (Nathaniel's was
pretty good), and turning those into a single document for new
people to read.
(I'd do it myself if I weren't too lame.)
Richard Braakman
rdly call that "hype".
Richard Braakman
in their text and in their titles. Section numbers or the
> equivalent are not considered part of the section titles.
it says "unaltered in their text and in their titles". It says nothing
about preserving formatting or markup.
Richard Braakman
On Thu, Aug 28, 2003 at 03:07:00AM -0400, Walter Landry wrote:
> Richard Braakman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 27, 2003 at 02:19:06PM -0700, Joe Buck wrote:
> > > I don't think the line that there is consensus on debian-legal will
> > > wash,
it, and
ask them to describe what's on it, what will they say? First
they'll say "Terminus", of course, but if you then ask "and more
generally?" I suspect most will say "software".
I suspect they will NOT say "software, manuals, graphics, sound effects
anifesto has collected some footnotes
over time. Do you still see no potential for enhancement?
The FSF is in the privileged position of being able to change
these sections when they need to be changed, and they're claiming
that no-one else will ever need to.
Richard Braakman
statement
that says "GPL v2 or any later version" means later versions as
defined in GPL v2.
Richard Braakman
ne the headers of
the notice you got to see where it came from. (Fortunately, those
are generally not faked.)
The returned mail you're getting is for the same reason: the
virus spreads (from someone else's machine) with your address
in its headers, and confused mail servers try to bounce it
"back" to you.
Richard Braakman
because it's such a nice
day, do you say "yes, but we should do it properly and run a marathon"?
Richard Braakman
he deadline is
September 15th for gcc (minus testing delay) and October 1st for
most of the others (again, minus testing delay).
Richard Braakman
)
grants enough permissions to render the rest of the license
meaningless.
I don't think the MPL was ever properly reviewed here :(
Richard Braakman
it's
there to be quoted from. This seems to be a social effect. In theory
it's not much trouble to look up a license text and copy it into
your reply, but in practice a text seems to be discussed much more
thoroughly if it was posted in the original mail.
Richard Braakman
ntegrity of
> the communication or data.
"admissible in evidence" is not very meaningful if that evidence
can immediately be shown to be useless. For example, by demonstrating
in court how to forge exactly that signature by downloading the
private key from a public archive and using it.
Richard Braakman
27;re now discussing why that doesn't work.
You need a public statement with many witnesses.
Richard Braakman
ce a package
is out in a stable release, we don't ever stop distributing it. And
since this code is already in the current stable release, making a
new one with the same code does indeed not intensify the problem.
Richard Braakman
a test: after gawk moves to GPLv3, is it important to keep
a copy of the GPLv2 in the documentation? Would you add the GPLv3
as an Invariant Section? If so, why?)
Richard Braakman
actual sale,
where money changes hands), and gets a license to make and
distribute further copies under certain conditions.
Richard Braakman
tions
don't seem to be Secondary Sections. I'd like to make it a complete
list, though, so that I'll only need his attention once.
Richard Braakman
On Mon, Sep 08, 2003 at 01:46:35PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Mon, 08 Sep 2003, Richard Braakman wrote:
> > Um, you missed "or other transfer of ownership".
>
> I didn't see it being applicable to software licences in general.
It looks very general to
There's no need
to examine the GPL that way.
Richard Braakman
ting
system. That got edited out of the Policy Manual by nefarious agents.
Now the Debian position is that Emacs is not important.
Richard Braakman
On Fri, Sep 12, 2003 at 02:18:10PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> Wouter (who wonders whether his mail about that subject has gone
> unnoticed on the otherwise so active -legal)
I just thought it was far too long. I think that about most new
licenses :(
Richard Braakman
wiches aren't. :)
>
> ... at least until the replicator is invented.
... and if that happens, we're going to need a Free Food Foundation anyway.
--
Richard Braakman
There's still time to save Europe from software patents.
EuropeSwPatentFree - http://EuropeSwPatentFree.internautas.org
addresses fall under
that category.
When you look at which kind of text IS marked invariant in the manuals
under discussion, you'll find that the FSF has a much broader idea of
Secondary Sections than the one you're using in your arguments.
--
Richard Braakman
There's still time to save Europe from software patents.
EuropeSwPatentFree - http://EuropeSwPatentFree.internautas.org
quot; directly as the help string then you're not quoting
anything, you're re-using some text from the Emacs manual.
A single line like this would be too small to matter, but Emacs
has thousands of thingamajigs to document.
Richard Braakman
much broader idea of
> > Secondary Sections than the one you're using in your arguments.
>
> Can you be more specific? An example perhaps?
I gave you one: the Distribution section of the Emacs manual. That's
what I was quoting from. Emacs 21.3+1-3, to be precise.
--
Richard B
os in question are in fact not part of Debian.
I think Richard Stallman was referring to essays such as
/usr/share/emacs/21.3/etc/WHY-FREE
(emacs21-common 21.3+1-3)
"Verbatim copying and redistribution is permitted without royalty as
long as this notice is preserved; alteration is no
rently find unacceptable. (Such
psychological continuums do exist, but movement is rarely only in
a single direction, so movement to an unacceptable extreme is never
inevitable.)
--
Richard Braakman
There's still time to save Europe from software patents.
EuropeSwPatentFree - http://EuropeSwPatentFree.internautas.org
currently
being discussed on debian-project.
--
Richard Braakman
There's still time to save Europe from software patents.
EuropeSwPatentFree - http://EuropeSwPatentFree.internautas.org
nce before, except that I thought
some of them to be bloat.
> Like chocolate sprinkles, they should not be overused.
You'll need a different example here. It is not possible to overuse
chocolate sprinkles.
Richard Braakman
he GNU Manifesto and the
hypothetical one, actually. Is the emacs etc directory the only
source of real snippets?
Richard Braakman
es of removing them?
- We save some bytes in the archive.
- If a snippet turns out to be problematic, we won't have to spend effort
on removing it because we already spent that effort.
- We might convince some authors to write modifiable snippets instead.
I don't see a convincing case
n?
Nope, Klingon isn't free. Though it might become free if enough people
learn the language and then someone writes a new dictionary based on
what those people speak. That might be a worthwhile project! :)
Richard Braakman
at a user who types "apt-get install
libchk" thereby agrees to an agreement he hasn't seen yet. They're
trying to restrict use as well as distribution.
Richard Braakman
n't allowed to use it to create confusion between
their work and ours.
Richard Braakman
enough; you have
to get it approved by MySQL AB too. That part goes farther than
the FSF does.
If you're dealing with the MySQL libraries specifically, then your
options are probably to either take them at their word or ask a
copyright lawyer.
Richard Braakman
e, but you're not allowed to run modified software
on this device"? I could discuss that for weeks :-)
Richard Braakman
no accident. It's
designed to let the Artistic License pass. The AL says "You may not
charge a fee for this Package itself" and then goes on to give
permission for including it in a larger distribution.
Richard Braakman
That is exactly why we should not buy the "implicit permission" argument.
Richard Braakman
le terms.
The G stands for "Guidelines". It was never meant to be a legally solid
definition of free software, and it isn't. I wouldn't use it as part
of a contract.
Richard Braakman
ll of those -- I would rather not add a new one.
In particular, making lintian depend on a non-free tool would mean removing
lintian from main. That is not a good thing.
Richard Braakman
ree software.
("All right, it's 2001. Everyone please hand in your copies of
Debian 1.3, it expires this week.")
Richard Braakman
source, you
have to put a "prominent notice" about it in ALL source files?
(According to (c), even in your own source files.)
Richard Braakman
ames
>
[...]
>
> I wish a statement from James why the extra permissions make the package
> unsuitable for Debian main.
The way I read it, the rejection was just because the copyright
file did not contain the full license.
Richard Braakman
ating a derived work is an issue
of modification and distribution, which you delegate to the GPL.
I'm not sure what effect that should have on interpretation.
Richard Braakman
or fear of being misinterpreted.)
On Mon, Mar 12, 2001 at 06:49:59PM -0600, Bob McElrath wrote:
> Richard Braakman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > I realize that you can make an argument that the GPL does not
> > grant any usage rights in the first place. But it specifically
> >
in
whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any
part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third
parties under the terms of this License.
I think that "licensed as a whole at no charge" includes license
to use, because it doesn't say it doesn't, but I don't know what
the legal interpretation would be.
Richard Braakman
it would be a problem.
> As Debian would not be exporting. I would.
> i.e. when I upload to pandora.
I think that if you upload to pandora it will not be a problem, we
already have crypto packages there that were originally exported
from the U.S. (IIRC the OCR approach was not used with pgp 2.6)
Though in those cases we don't actually know who exported it, I
don't know if that makes a difference.
Richard Braakman
for all to use, they don't
want to see others build on their work without giving the same
favour back.
Richard Braakman
enamed it.
Surely a Debian package is a derived product?
Richard Braakman
On Wed, Apr 04, 2001 at 10:47:52AM +0200, Mark Wielaard wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 04, 2001 at 11:38:29AM +0300, Richard Braakman wrote:
> > Hmm, it might not be DFSG OK until *after* you have renamed it.
> > Surely a Debian package is a derived product?
> If that was the case then
bian revisions per upstream release is not unusual.)
> Comments?
My main one is that I think that protecting the name of your project
is much better done through trademarks than through copyright.
Trademarks were designed for this, and copyright won't protect you
if someone writes a new HTTP
ht be able to use the email you got from the author as this
statement, but it's pretty thin evidence. A public statement would
be much better.
Richard Braakman
On Wed, Apr 18, 2001 at 09:31:53PM -0700, Brian Behlendorf wrote:
> On Thu, 5 Apr 2001, Richard Braakman wrote:
> > Creating such a test would be a lot of work if you don't already
> > have one.
>
> Yes, I'm not thinking of a compatibility test suite. I&#
en popping up here and there for years.
I don't see it getting any worse, but it doesn't seem to be getting
any better either. (It might get worse fast if hardware vendors
start pushing closed platforms like copy-restricting hard disks, but
I doubt any geek would want one of those in the first place.)
Richard Braakman
> kernel-source-2.4.0
> kernel-source-2.4.1
> kernel-source-2.4.2
> kernel-source-2.4.3
(long list of images)
I don't think it's useful to file bugs against every single image,
given that they would all go to the same maintainer. Filing them
against the source package should be enough.
Richard Braakman
once, which only distributed
the compiler as C files which had been generated from Eiffel sources.
This was fixed upstream after the problem was pointed out.
Richard Braakman
en source code is not the answer - most will probably just
> withdraw support, saving it for some other alternative, less picky operating
> system (like windows).
By the same token, we can buy hardware from more accommodating vendors.
Richard Braakman
On Fri, Apr 27, 2001 at 04:34:15PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
> Richard Braakman wrote:
> > We usually allow some time for license issues to be resolved. In the
> > extreme case of KDE it was more than a year :)
>
> You forget: KDE was removed from the archive durin
e,
Debian has fulfilled its potential obligation to inform the user, yet
does not take a stance about the validity of the patent.
Richard Braakman
attention to exactly how, in what format, and to
whom their product will be distributed.
Richard Braakman
ived works.
In some cases, if the theme contains logos or product names, you
might also run into trademark law.
Richard Braakman
(Occasionally has lunch with a lawyer)
not specifically listed here.)
However... this is not an ordinary executable. FreeDOS _is_ an
operating system! It doesn't run on anything else. So I think
the escape clause is unusable here.
--
Richard Braakman
Looking for a job writing free software.
See http://www.xs4all.nl/~dark/resume.html
. If the kernel really
has only 200 bytes of Borland code in it, then perhaps that could
be gotten rid of fairly easily.
--
Richard Braakman
Will write free software for money.
See http://www.xs4all.nl/~dark/resume.html
actually GPL'd (by the fact that is links
> against L2).
The difference becomes significant if someone takes part of L1 and uses
it in some other project. Then the dependency on L2 may not apply.
Even if the dependency is extreme, the other project would reimplement
L1 under a different lice
is using option 3a, distributing source together with
binaries. It does NOT offer or promise to keep sources around for 3 years.
So if you got such an offer, it wasn't from Debian, and it won't refer
to www.debian.org.
Richard Braakman
mitted as follows, or by mutual
> agreement: [...]
... but nothing in the license grants permission to distribute modified
versions. Local modification is, after all, local. That's the sticking
point.
--
Richard Braakman
Will write free software for money.
See http://www.xs4all.nl/~dark/resume.html
,
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 the
freeness of the work it accompanies.
--
Richard Braakman
Will write free software for money.
See http://www.xs4all.nl/~dark/resume.html
e invariant sections, and
not allow any others without prior discussion.
Richard Braakman
ven small extracts from the
manual it is bound to, and it might migrate to smaller manuals.
I don't think the size of the manual it originally accompanies is
all that relevant.
[I've cut down the crossposts to "just" debian-legal and debian-policy.]
--
Richard Braakman
Will write free software for money.
See http://www.xs4all.nl/~dark/resume.html
at cannot be resolved based on technical merits) is
exactly what they are designed for.
We don't have to get into the tangled question of whether the DFSG can
be amended. We can publish such a Resolution as a new document.
--
Richard Braakman
Will write free software for money.
See http://www.xs4all.nl/~dark/resume.html
required to include that
statement, even when it is no longer true. Web site foo might have
been turned into one of those obnoxious porn sites that use javascript
in creative ways. But still, you must preserve that notice.
Richard Braakman
GPL itself as well, and the last time the FSF
moved it was handled via silent replacement of the license text. I even
wrote the Lintian check for that :-) But the GPL has explicit provisions
that allow such upgrading, which the Emacs manual does not have.
--
Richard Braakman
Will w
ke you agree with the spirit of Anthony Towns's proposal?
Indeed. I hadn't realized that, until I re-read the mail where he
explained it again. Yes, there would be only minor differences
between his proposal and what I had in mind.
--
Richard Braakman
Will write free software for money.
On Sun, Dec 16, 2001 at 12:00:46PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> >From tex.web:
Do we even distribute TeX? We have packages for tetex, which claims
to be GPLed. I didn't look very closely, though.
--
Richard Braakman
Will write free software for money.
See http://www.xs4a
stuck to the GDB manual.
If it weren't for that, the essay's non-freeness wouldn't be an issue.
--
Richard Braakman
Will write free software for money.
See http://www.xs4all.nl/~dark/resume.html
D must be free. DFSG#1 forbids such a restriction.
Richard Braakman
mmercial product, can you have
any confidence that you have followed the license in a way that will
hold up in court?
Richard Braakman
t's reasonable. I think this is different in princible from
a license where "reasonable" is determined by the copyright holder,
or the courts.
Richard Braakman
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
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, and conclusions of the original author"?
I personally think that goes without saying.
Richard Braakman
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
the circumstances.
But the GPL claims to grant its permissions to the whole, including every
part regardless of who wrote it. If that statement in the GPL is not true,
then you have not (effectively) applied the GPL.
Richard Braakman
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I thought about this some more while performing various acts of personal
hygiene[1], and I think I can state my opinion more clearly.
On Fri, Jun 14, 2002 at 11:00:46AM +0300, Richard Braakman wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 13, 2002 at 11:40:28PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > Because the F
ce was tested by 20+ years
> of TeX, which is licensed under exactly same conditions.
No, TeX is in the public domain. Only the name is restricted, and
that's not a filename restriction. The distinction is important if
filenames are part of the technical interface.
Richard Braakm
document I receive, for example.
Also, there is the possibility of *reading* files that it shouldn't,
and embedding them in the output somehow. This might cause me to
unknowingly publish a document that has my secret keys hidden in it.
Richard Braakman
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email t
1 - 100 of 274 matches
Mail list logo
