Thibaut VARENE wrote:
> In my previous example, a license only stating "you can do whatever you
> want with the licensed material but redistribute it printed on toilet
> paper" would fail the DFS "Rules", whilst i do believe it's clearly free
> enough for our purposes (and our users), and should pa
Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> [I'm a little disappointed I've had only one response so far. I guess
> that means the rest of you who are contributing to this thread are more
> interested in flaming than trying to fix the problem.]
I think that's trolling. Please don't do it. I think it's more likely
th
--- Petter Reinholdtsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> [Nathanael Nerode]
> > Suppose the GCC manual was not licensed for use in essays on the
> > economics of free software. (It actually provides some great
> > examples of funding methods, and quoting some of the sections on
> > various features
Petter Reinholdtsen writes:
> As far as I know, quoting is covered within the fair use rights, and do
> not have to be covered by the license to be allowed.
Sometimes it is and sometimes it isn't. It depends on the amount quoted
and the use to which the quotation is put.
--
John Hasler
--
To
On Sun, May 01, 2005 at 10:22:19PM +0200, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
> [Nathanael Nerode]
> > Suppose the GCC manual was not licensed for use in essays on the
> > economics of free software. (It actually provides some great
> > examples of funding methods, and quoting some of the sections on
> > v
[Nathanael Nerode]
> Suppose the GCC manual was not licensed for use in essays on the
> economics of free software. (It actually provides some great
> examples of funding methods, and quoting some of the sections on
> various features to go with the information on how they were funded
> would be
(MJ Ray)
and it also contradicts
with "No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor" because no
topic of a secondary section can used as the main purpose.
(Matthew Wilcox)
I don't think that's an interesting case though. Why would you take a
document that has nothing to do with a particular subje
On Fri, Apr 15, 2005 at 04:27:08PM -0700, Adam McKenna wrote:
> wording of the definition is unfortunate, and needs work, but the real
> question is, would any sane person or court really consider a work
> that cites another work to be a modified version of the original work?
If the work that cite
On Fri, Apr 15, 2005 at 07:06:51PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> There are many jurisdictions without the US's concept of "fair use". Freedoms
> depending on fair use are not sufficient for Debian--a license with non-free
> restrictions is not typically considered free because those restrictions a
On Sat, Apr 16, 2005 at 12:39:13AM +0200, David Schmitt wrote:
> > > > So I'm not sure why you couldn't also do it with text licensed under
> > > > the GFDL.
> > >
> > > Indeed. But this obviously then is no "free" work. Why should Debian want
> > > to distribute that in main?
> >
> > I'm not sure
On Fri, Apr 15, 2005 at 03:10:48PM -0700, Adam McKenna wrote:
> I'm not sure what you're asking, but the point was that you don't need the
> author's permission, or a license, to use quotes or cite portions of a text
> in another work. I can go to a library and look in books and use information
>
On Saturday 16 April 2005 00:10, Adam McKenna wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 15, 2005 at 11:59:38PM +0200, David Schmitt wrote:
> > On Thursday 14 April 2005 22:32, Adam McKenna wrote:
> > > On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 10:17:12PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > > > Now imagine someone who's doing a study on av
On Fri, Apr 15, 2005 at 11:59:38PM +0200, David Schmitt wrote:
> On Thursday 14 April 2005 22:32, Adam McKenna wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 10:17:12PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > > Now imagine someone who's doing a study on available algorithms for
> > > Fourier transforms, and wants to
On Thursday 14 April 2005 22:32, Adam McKenna wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 10:17:12PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > Now imagine someone who's doing a study on available algorithms for
> > Fourier transforms, and wants to pick out parts of the text in the
> > invariant section to write his p
On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 01:56:09PM -0700, Adam McKenna wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 10:22:22PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 09:51:07PM +0200, cobaco (aka Bart Cornelis) wrote:
> > > Given the above I don't really see any real difference of a
> > > tarball with a doc
O Venres, 15 de Abril de 2005 ás 14:07:05 +0200, Thibaut VARENE escribía:
> This is where i disagree. I think we have to be "comprehensive" when
> dealing with acceptation of licenses: When balancing the interests of our
> users and our commitment to freedoms, we should be able to tell "what is
>
On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 16:25:51 +0100
Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Thibaut VARENE <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Matthew Garret wrote:
> "You may not use technical measures to obstruct or control the reading
> or further copying of the copies you make or distribute."
>
> That's not
On Thu, 2005-04-14 at 22:00 +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
>
> [Note Mail-Followup-To:]
Noted, but the problem is not everyone is subscribed to debian-project,
which makes continuity of the discussion somewhat awkward...
>
> The interesting bit is the bit that is explictly omitted: the rationale.
> It
On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 03:11:10PM +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> [I'm a little disappointed I've had only one response so far. I guess
As of this post, you had three responses. Two were only sent to
d-project (which makes sense; discussing this stuff on d-private
is silly).
> that means the r
On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 10:22:22PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 09:51:07PM +0200, cobaco (aka Bart Cornelis) wrote:
> > Given the above I don't really see any real difference of a tarball with a
> > docbook and included pictures/graphs/,... and an Openoffice doc.
> > Wh
")
Fcc: +sent-mail
Mail-Followup-To: debian-project@lists.debian.org
On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 03:11:10PM +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
[Note Mail-Followup-To:]
> [I'm a little disappointed I've had only one response so far. I guess
> that means the rest of you who are contributing to this thread
On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 10:17:12PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> Now imagine someone who's doing a study on available algorithms for
> Fourier transforms, and wants to pick out parts of the text in the
> invariant section to write his paper.
It seems that he could do this with a simple footnote
On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 09:51:07PM +0200, cobaco (aka Bart Cornelis) wrote:
> Given the above I don't really see any real difference of a tarball with a
> docbook and included pictures/graphs/,... and an Openoffice doc.
> Why on earth would we want to exclude openoffice docs (provided that the
>
On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 03:11:10PM +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 02:41:18AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> > This inherits its definition of Transparent from the FDL, but
> > some DDs consider that awkward. Is there a better one?
>
> I wasn't aware that people had expressed proble
On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 09:51:07PM +0200, cobaco (aka Bart Cornelis) wrote:
> er, are you aware that an openoffice document is basically a zip file of a
> coupple of xml documents (plus included pictures if any)?
> -> you definately /can/ edit them in a generic text editor, in fact I've
> done so
On Thursday 14 April 2005 19:25, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 05:55:31PM +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 05:50:08PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > > On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 03:11:10PM +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 02:41:
[Replying only to -project, since there's *ABSOLUTELY NO POINT* in
having something on -private when it's already on -project.]
On Thu, 14 Apr 2005, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 05:50:08PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > Openoffice documents are classified as Opaque, thusly ca
On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 10:19:56AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> What does this cross-posting between debian-project and debian-private
> mean?
It means follow-ups to Matthew's orginal post should have gone to
debian-project only, but not everybody seemed to honor that.
Michael
--
Michae
On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 05:55:31PM +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 05:50:08PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 03:11:10PM +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > > On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 02:41:18AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> > > > > http://people.debian.org/~wi
What does this cross-posting between debian-project and debian-private
mean?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 05:50:08PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 03:11:10PM +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 02:41:18AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> > > > http://people.debian.org/~willy/dfdocg-0.4.txt
> > >
> > > This inherits its definition of Transpar
On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 11:00:45PM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 09:55:12AM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 03:37:02PM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> > > You wrote 'specification', I wrote 'standards documents'.
> >
> > I call things by their real
On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 03:11:10PM +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 02:41:18AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> > > http://people.debian.org/~willy/dfdocg-0.4.txt
> >
> > This inherits its definition of Transparent from the FDL, but
> > some DDs consider that awkward. Is there a better
This shoulda gone here too (Matthew, you can forward my other message if you
want to forward your reply).
Daniel
--
/--- Daniel Burrows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --\
| "Systems in which an event can happen before itself do|
| not seem to
On Thursday 14 April 2005 10:11 am, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> [I'm a little disappointed I've had only one response so far. I guess
> that means the rest of you who are contributing to this thread are more
> interested in flaming than trying to fix the problem.]
Personally I haven't responded b
[I'm a little disappointed I've had only one response so far. I guess
that means the rest of you who are contributing to this thread are more
interested in flaming than trying to fix the problem.]
On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 02:41:18AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> > http://people.debian.org/~willy/dfdoc
On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 11:00:45PM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> > It's just more documentation. Free software needs *free* documentation.
>
> Assuming I agree, what's that got to do with standards documents
> (or specifications, if you like)? RFCs, for example, describe
> protocols which is not
On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 09:55:12AM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 03:37:02PM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> > You wrote 'specification', I wrote 'standards documents'.
>
> I call things by their real names. A 'standards document' is a
> specification promoted by a self-pro
On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 03:37:02PM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 01:44:22AM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 09:21:42AM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> > > On Wed, Apr 13, 2005 at 05:34:51PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > > > duplicated, or a blan
On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 01:38:24AM -0600, Ean Schuessler wrote:
> On Thursday 14 April 2005 12:58 am, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> > Computer programs are useful tools, even if you can't change them.
>
> So are laws?
Sorry, I don't understand the relevance. My point (which is not
necessarily something
On Thursday 14 April 2005 12:58 am, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> Computer programs are useful tools, even if you can't change them.
So are laws?
--
Ean Schuessler, CTO
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
214-720-0700 x 315
Brainfood, Inc.
http://www.brainfood.com
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a
On Thursday 14 April 2005 07.37, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> *We* don't add IPv6 support to standards documents just by changing
> those documents. Instead you go to the standards body, propose a change,
> it gets discussed etc and then ratified if everyone likes it. Then a new
> document is published
On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 03:37:02PM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> Standards documents (eg RFCs) are useful references, even if you can't
> change them. Like when writing software that needs to implement the
> standards.
Computer programs are useful tools, even if you can't change them.
--
Glenn
On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 01:44:22AM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 09:21:42AM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 13, 2005 at 05:34:51PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > > duplicated, or a blanket grant to include anything in main. As best we
> > > know so far, the
On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 02:41:18AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> Regarding your "Issues", note that only the DFSG's
> explanations/examples use the word "programs". If you did
> introduce a simple word change, I think it would be pretty
> likely to succeed but there would be accusations about
> "editorial
> http://people.debian.org/~willy/dfdocg-0.4.txt
This inherits its definition of Transparent from the FDL, but
some DDs consider that awkward. Is there a better one?
"Integrity of The Author's Document" looks like it might
permit practically unmodifiable documents, as "certain ways"
is very vague
On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 09:21:42AM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 13, 2005 at 05:34:51PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > duplicated, or a blanket grant to include anything in main. As best we
> > know so far, there is no useful point between these (unmodifiable or
> > unredistributabl
Matthew Wilcox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I approach this primarily from a pragmatic point of view (from a "our
> priorities are our users and free software" PoV if you want to think in
> terms of the social contract). The GNU manuals are useful and important.
> They have always had the restric
On Wed, Apr 13, 2005 at 05:34:51PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> duplicated, or a blanket grant to include anything in main. As best we
> know so far, there is no useful point between these (unmodifiable or
> unredistributable documents are not considered useful).
I disagree. Standards documents
On Wed, Apr 13, 2005 at 06:44:02PM +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> I approach this primarily from a pragmatic point of view (from a "our
> priorities are our users and free software" PoV if you want to think in
> terms of the social contract). The GNU manuals are useful and important.
Lots of non-
Matthew Wilcox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> This is actually the fourth draft, but wanted to polish it a bit before
> everyone got to see it:
>
> http://people.debian.org/~willy/dfdocg-0.4.txt
Nice piece of work, thanks!
...
> I expect controversy over section 4 primarily with perhaps minor com
Andrew Suffield writes:
> There are much better ways to write the clause than this. The only reason
> it's broken is because the FSF are crap at writing licenses.
They did an excellent job with the GPL, but the GFDL is horrible. It's not
just that it's non-Free: it's nearly incomprehensible. I w
On Wed, Apr 13, 2005 at 02:55:39PM +0200, Jérôme Marant wrote:
> Quoting Matthew Wilcox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > I remain unconvinced that the freedoms required for documentation are
> > the same freedoms required for software. I think the best way to fix
> > the current situation is to propose th
On Wed, Apr 13, 2005 at 11:50:26AM -0500, John Hasler wrote:
> I'm asking why the GFDL cannot simply waive DMCA rights instead of
> awkwardly banning "technical measures".
There are much better ways to write the clause than this. The only
reason it's broken is because the FSF are crap at writing
l
I wrote:
> Why is it not sufficient for the copyright owner to disclaim DMCA DRM
> protection?
Andrew Suffield writes:
> It is always possible to convert a non-free license into a free one by
> sufficient modification; often this can be done by attaching a rider to
> the license. So yes, this prob
On Wed, Apr 13, 2005 at 12:29:31PM +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 13, 2005 at 11:05:07AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > But we *can* make people happy in this respect. It's possible for the
> > GFDL to achieve its goal without preventing this use case.
>
> I remain unconvinced that
On Wed, Apr 13, 2005 at 08:19:59AM -0500, John Hasler wrote:
> Matthew Garrett writes:
> > I believe that for software to be free, it must be possible to distribute
> > it in DRM-encumbered formats, providing an unencumbered version is also
> > available. Do you disagree? If so, why?
>
> Why is it
On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 12:23:35AM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 13, 2005 at 08:19:11AM -0400, Evan Prodromou wrote:
> > On Wed, 2005-04-13 at 12:29 +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > > I remain unconvinced that the freedoms required for documentation are
> > > the same freedoms required
Thibaut VARENE <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Matthew Garret wrote:
>> I believe that for software to be free, it must be possible to
>> distribute it in DRM-encumbered formats, providing an unencumbered
>> version is also available. Do you disagree? If so, why?
>
> Of course I don't. This looks pl
Thibaut VARENE wrote:
> That's what I call favorizing the minority over the majority.
I acknowledge the context of this remark, but I ask you
to remember the trouble that the other view can cause when
generalised and majority takes all, regardless of minority.
Compromise is only possible when the
On Wed, Apr 13, 2005 at 08:19:11AM -0400, Evan Prodromou wrote:
> On Wed, 2005-04-13 at 12:29 +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > I remain unconvinced that the freedoms required for documentation are
> > the same freedoms required for software. I think the best way to fix
> > the current situation is
Matthew Garret wrote:
> Thibaut VARENE <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > This has a name: ideology. Rarely (if not never) can it be
actually
> > implemented in real life.
>
> What is free software if not an ideology? We make the main/non-free
> distinction because we (generalising madly) believe t
Matthew Garrett writes:
> I believe that for software to be free, it must be possible to distribute
> it in DRM-encumbered formats, providing an unencumbered version is also
> available. Do you disagree? If so, why?
Why is it not sufficient for the copyright owner to disclaim DMCA DRM
protection?
On Wed, Apr 13, 2005 at 08:19:11AM -0400, Evan Prodromou wrote:
> On Wed, 2005-04-13 at 12:29 +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > I remain unconvinced that the freedoms required for documentation are
> > the same freedoms required for software. I think the best way to fix
> > the current situation is
Quoting Matthew Wilcox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Wed, Apr 13, 2005 at 11:05:07AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > But we *can* make people happy in this respect. It's possible for the
> > GFDL to achieve its goal without preventing this use case.
>
> I remain unconvinced that the freedoms require
Thibaut VARENE <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This has a name: ideology. Rarely (if not never) can it be actually
> implemented in real life.
What is free software if not an ideology? We make the main/non-free
distinction because we (generalising madly) believe that our users
should have certain fr
On Wed, 2005-04-13 at 12:29 +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> I remain unconvinced that the freedoms required for documentation are
> the same freedoms required for software. I think the best way to fix
> the current situation is to propose the Debian Free Documentation
> Guidelines and modify the SC
---
> On Wed, 2005-04-13 at 11:49 +0300, Thibaut VARENE wrote:
>
> (I've shifted this to -project - it's not really relevant to
-private)
>
> > This is yet another interesting concept of freedom, democracy, and
> > "interest of our users". For the benefit of the *very small part
o
On Wed, Apr 13, 2005 at 11:05:07AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> But we *can* make people happy in this respect. It's possible for the
> GFDL to achieve its goal without preventing this use case.
I remain unconvinced that the freedoms required for documentation are
the same freedoms required for
On Wed, 2005-04-13 at 11:49 +0300, Thibaut VARENE wrote:
(I've shifted this to -project - it's not really relevant to -private)
> This is yet another interesting concept of freedom, democracy, and
> "interest of our users". For the benefit of the *very small part of
> mind-twisted people that abs
70 matches
Mail list logo
