On Wed, Jan 25, 2006 at 05:10:14AM -0600, Peter Samuelson wrote:
> The problem is, if DFSG #5 and #6 mean what you think they mean, they
> effectively prevent _all_ license restrictions whatsoever. Because if
DFSG 6 is only about license restrictions on usage. It does not cover
restriction on di
[Bill Allombert]
> The DFSG says 'the license must not restrict ...', it does not say
> 'the program must not restrict ...'.
That's a fair point. I chose a bad example indeed.
You still haven't given a reasonable answer to the real point, though,
that being: "field of endeavor" does not mean "a
On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 05:10:55PM -0600, Peter Samuelson wrote:
>
> [Bill Allombert]
> > > > No, the GPL does not ban proprietary software companies from
> > > > using the software.
> > >
> > > Exactly. And neither does the GFDL ban people from using the
> > > documentation if they work in a se
[Bill Allombert]
> > > No, the GPL does not ban proprietary software companies from
> > > using the software.
> >
> > Exactly. And neither does the GFDL ban people from using the
> > documentation if they work in a security field.
>
> The GFDL does ban them: they are not allowed to copy the doc
Graham Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> What sections of the DFSG do you think GFDL documents without invariant
> sections fail?
I've been thinking a lot about this issue, and I think it basically
revolves around one's interpretation of the first two points of the DFSG:
| Free Redistribution
On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 12:40:30PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 22, 2006 at 03:42:39PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > > And what? If someone tries to bring through a GR stating that
> > > MS office warez can be distributed in main since it meets the DFSG,
> > > one mi
On Sat, Jan 21, 2006 at 02:52:01PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Q1.1) Are GFDL licensed works without invariant texts non-free?
>
>Well, according to the RM team, and some developers (full
>disclosure: myself included), yes, they are, even if there is no
>explicit infraction of s
On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 01:08:46PM -0600, Peter Samuelson wrote:
>
> [Bill Allombert]
> > > > There exist fields of endeavours that require mandatory
> > > > encryption. For example, if you work in security-sensitive
> > > > field, you can be required to use a hard-drive with built-in
> > > > enc
[Bill Allombert]
> > > There exist fields of endeavours that require mandatory
> > > encryption. For example, if you work in security-sensitive
> > > field, you can be required to use a hard-drive with built-in
> > > encryption. This technology certainly control who can read the
> > > disk. In
On Mon, 23 Jan 2006, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> > No, the GPL does not ban proprietary software companies from using
> > the software.
>
> Not *yet*. GPLv3 does (with the Patent related clauses) ;p does it
> makes GPLv3 non free ?
No, it imposes duties on entites who control patents (or have patent
On Sun, Jan 22, 2006 at 03:42:39PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > And what? If someone tries to bring through a GR stating that
> > MS office warez can be distributed in main since it meets the DFSG,
> > one might rule that as frivolous and a waste of time.
>
> I'm not convinced the c
* Pierre Habouzit [Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 04:23:46PM +0100]:
> > No, the GPL does not ban proprietary software companies from using
> > the software.
>
> Not *yet*. GPLv3 does (with the Patent related clauses) ;p
I really don't think the current draft "ban proprietary software
companies from using
> > > Fact 3:
> > >
> > > There exist fields of endeavours that require mandatory
> > > encryption. For example, if you work in security-sensitive field,
> > > you can be required to use a hard-drive with built-in encryption.
> > > This technology certainly control who can read the disk. In
> > >
On Sun, Jan 22, 2006 at 04:19:49PM -0600, Peter Samuelson wrote:
>
> [Bill Allombert]
> > Fact 1: The GFDL include this:
> >
> > "You may not use technical measures to obstruct or control the
> > reading or further copying of the copies you make or distribute."
> >
> > Fact 2: The DFSG includ
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Q1.1) Are GFDL licensed works without invariant texts non-free?
>
>Well, according to the RM team, and some developers (full
>disclosure: myself included), yes, they are, even if there is no
>explicit infraction of specific portions of ou
On Sun, Jan 22, 2006 at 12:53:00PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> And what? If someone tries to bring through a GR stating that
> MS office warez can be distributed in main since it meets the DFSG,
> one might rule that as frivolous and a waste of time.
One answer to this would be to l
On Sun, Jan 22, 2006 at 12:53:00PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Jan 2006 19:25:58 +0100, David N Welton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >> On Sun, 22 Jan 2006 13:59:15 +0100, Martijn van Oosterhout
> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> >>> 1. debian-legal is wro
On Sun, 2006-01-22 at 10:57 -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> If you do not see closed source software as incontrovertibly
> non-free, I have no desire to discuss this issue with you.
You are exaggerating my point into ridicule.
> Under some (extreme) viewpoints, there are no facts
> (you, sir,
[Bill Allombert]
> Fact 1: The GFDL include this:
>
> "You may not use technical measures to obstruct or control the
> reading or further copying of the copies you make or distribute."
>
> Fact 2: The DFSG include this:
>
> 6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor
>
> The licens
On Sun, 22 Jan 2006 10:21:13 -0700, Wesley J Landaker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Saturday 21 January 2006 13:52, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> So, I am seeking arguments and guidance from the developer body
>> whether issue 1 can, and should, be decidable by a general
>> resolution, or whether t
On Sat, Jan 21, 2006 at 02:52:01PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>
> I am, at this point, unclear whether I hold GFDL licensed
> works without invariant texts non-free as a matter of opinion, or of
> fact.
Fact 1: The GFDL include this:
"You may not use technical measures to obstruct
On Sunday 22 January 2006 11:59, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Jan 2006 10:21:13 -0700, Wesley J Landaker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
said:
> > On Saturday 21 January 2006 13:52, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >> So, I am seeking arguments and guidance from the developer body
> >> whether issue 1 can, a
On Sun, 22 Jan 2006 13:59:15 +0100, Martijn van Oosterhout
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> 1. debian-legal is wrong, the GFDL is compatable with the DFSG and
>thus should be included in main.
Looking over the arguments for and against it in -legal, I am
trying to ascertain if this stan
On Sun, 22 Jan 2006 12:48:05 +0100 (CET), Thijs Kinkhorst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
said:
> On Sat, January 21, 2006 21:52, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> So, can the developers dispute this? Obviously, the developer body
>> can dispute any delegated action. But a GR can't overturn something
>> seen as fa
On Sun, 22 Jan 2006 19:25:58 +0100, David N Welton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> On Sun, 22 Jan 2006 13:59:15 +0100, Martijn van Oosterhout
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>>
>>
>>> 1. debian-legal is wrong, the GFDL is compatable with the DFSG and
>>> thus should be inclu
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Jan 2006 13:59:15 +0100, Martijn van Oosterhout
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
>
>>1. debian-legal is wrong, the GFDL is compatable with the DFSG and
>> thus should be included in main.
>
>
> Looking over the arguments for and against it in -legal,
On Saturday 21 January 2006 13:52, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> So, I am seeking arguments and guidance from the developer
> body whether issue 1 can, and should, be decidable by a general
> resolution, or whether the freeness of the GFDL licensed works
> without invariant clauses is incont
On Sun, 22 Jan 2006 10:36:05 -0300, Margarita Manterola <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
said:
> On 1/21/06, Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> So, I am seeking arguments and guidance from the developer body
>> whether issue 1 can, and should, be decidable by a general
>> resolution, or wheth
On 1/21/06, Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> So, I am seeking arguments and guidance from the developer
> body whether issue 1 can, and should, be decidable by a general
> resolution, or whether the freeness of the GFDL licensed works
> without invariant clauses is incontr
2006/1/22, Thijs Kinkhorst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> This goes even further here, because the DFSG is not even a strict set of
> rules but are guidelines. As we all know, guidelines are subject to
> interpretation on a case-by-case basis, that's what distinguishes them
> from rules. Therefore, I think
On Sat, January 21, 2006 21:52, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> So, can the developers dispute this? Obviously, the developer
> body can dispute any delegated action. But a GR can't overturn something
> seen as fact (so no GR stating PI=exacly 3.14 or 22/7).
Could you please explain how you arrive at th
On Sat, 21 Jan 2006 17:26:12 +1000, Anthony Towns
said:
> Why should it be a separate GR? That's seems both unnecessary and a
> bad idea; what's the point in overriding decisions about the GFDL,
> if it is then declared non-free anyway?
Well, here is one view of how things stand.
Iss
32 matches
Mail list logo
