General news about the distribution and the project

Martin Schulze | 19 Aug 2003 22:12

Debian Weekly News - August 19th, 2003

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Debian Weekly News
http://www.debian.org/News/weekly/2003/33/
Debian Weekly News - August 19th, 2003
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Welcome to this year's 33rd issue of DWN, the weekly newsletter for
the Debian community. Aryan Ameri wrote a user [1]review of
[2]Libranet 2.8, which is based on Debian. Richard Stallman [3]said
he now prefers the [4]GNU/LinEx distribution over Debian because of
non-free software on our FTP servers. There's been a lot of discussion
on the [5]debian-legal list about the definition of the word
"software", with much heat generated.

 1. http://www.linuxiran.org/modules/news/article.php?storyid=232
 2. http://www.libranet.com/
 3. http://www.ofb.biz/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=260
 4. http://www.linex.org/
 5. http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal-0308/

Birthday Present: Rescue CD. As a special birthday present for the
[6]10th anniversary of the Debian project Jörg Jaspert has created a
business card sized [7]rescue CD. Although only 50 MB in size, it
contains most tools required to rescue a GNU/Linux systems, plus some
tools which are useful to rescue other systems. The CD can be ordered
at [8]LinuxLand.

 6. http://www.debian.org/News/2003/20030811
 7. http://people.debian.org/~joerg/rettcd/
 8. http://www.linuxland.de/katalog/01_linuxdistri_bs/debian/debiangeburtstag/framify

(Continue reading)

headers

Mike Hommey | 19 Aug 2003 23:33

Re: Debian Weekly News - August 19th, 2003

On Tuesday 19 August 2003 22:12, Martin Schulze wrote:
> Welcome to this year's 33rd issue of DWN, the weekly newsletter for
> the Debian community. Aryan Ameri wrote a user [1]review of
> [2]Libranet 2.8, which is based on Debian. Richard Stallman [3]said
> he now prefers the [4]GNU/LinEx distribution over Debian because of
> non-free software on our FTP servers. There's been a lot of discussion
> on the [5]debian-legal list about the definition of the word
> "software", with much heat generated.
>
>  1. http://www.linuxiran.org/modules/news/article.php?storyid=232
>  2. http://www.libranet.com/
>  3. http://www.ofb.biz/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=260
>  4. http://www.linex.org/
>  5. http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal-0308/

Let me see...
I go to the linex home page. What do i see ?
"GNU/LinEx y tarjetas NVIDIA".
Oh well, seems interesting, so I go in the page and see that they seem to 
provide some package for nvidia drivers. Maybe newer drivers (their distro is 
based on woody, so...)
Ok, let's google a bit, and.... shazaam !
http://www.linex.org/sources/linex/debian/linex/nvidia-glx_1.0.4349-1_i386.deb
Oh ! non-free software !

Thanks Richard for keeping me laughing.

Mike

(Continue reading)

headers

Hans Ekbrand | 20 Aug 2003 20:13

Non-free software on linex [was Re: Debian Weekly News - August 19th, 2003]

On Tue, Aug 19, 2003 at 11:33:12PM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
> On Tuesday 19 August 2003 22:12, Martin Schulze wrote:

[...]

> > [2]Libranet 2.8, which is based on Debian. Richard Stallman [3]said
> > he now prefers the [4]GNU/LinEx distribution over Debian because of
> > non-free software on our FTP servers. 

[...]

> Let me see...
> I go to the linex home page. What do i see ?
> "GNU/LinEx y tarjetas NVIDIA".
> Oh well, seems interesting, so I go in the page and see that they seem to 
> provide some package for nvidia drivers. Maybe newer drivers (their distro is 
> based on woody, so...)
> Ok, let's google a bit, and.... shazaam !
> http://www.linex.org/sources/linex/debian/linex/nvidia-glx_1.0.4349-1_i386.deb
> Oh ! non-free software !
> 
> Thanks Richard for keeping me laughing.

There's more of it: http://www.linex.org/sources/linex/debian/linex/
lists acroread_4.05-3, mplayer_0.90pre5-3
flashplugin-nonfree_6.0.79-1, hsflinmodem-linex_0.5.2-1

--

-- 

Hans Ekbrand

(Continue reading)

headers

Mike Hommey | 20 Aug 2003 22:58

Re: Non-free software on linex [was Re: Debian Weekly News - August 19th, 2003]

On Wednesday 20 August 2003 20:13, Hans Ekbrand wrote:
> There's more of it: http://www.linex.org/sources/linex/debian/linex/
> lists acroread_4.05-3, mplayer_0.90pre5-3
> flashplugin-nonfree_6.0.79-1, hsflinmodem-linex_0.5.2-1

... and j2re, yes, I saw that afterwards...
Some are quite badly packaged, by the way...

Mike

headers

Josselin Mouette | 20 Aug 2003 00:34

Re: Debian Weekly News - August 19th, 2003

Le mar 19/08/2003 à 23:33, Mike Hommey a écrit :
> Ok, let's google a bit, and.... shazaam !
> http://www.linex.org/sources/linex/debian/linex/nvidia-glx_1.0.4349-1_i386.deb
> Oh ! non-free software !
> 
> Thanks Richard for keeping me laughing.

Bah, if RMS really didn't like non-free software, he would give up with
that FDL stuff...
--

-- 
 .''`.           Josselin Mouette        /\./\
: :' :           josselin.mouette <at> ens-lyon.org
`. `'                        joss <at> debian.org
  `-  Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom

headers

Jérôme Marant | 20 Aug 2003 09:35

Re: Debian Weekly News - August 19th, 2003

Quoting Josselin Mouette <josselin.mouette <at> ens-lyon.org>:

> Le mar 19/08/2003 à 23:33, Mike Hommey a écrit :
> > Ok, let's google a bit, and.... shazaam !
> >
> http://www.linex.org/sources/linex/debian/linex/nvidia-glx_1.0.4349-1_i386.deb
> > Oh ! non-free software !
> > 
> > Thanks Richard for keeping me laughing.
> 
> Bah, if RMS really didn't like non-free software, he would give up with
> that FDL stuff...

No he wouldn't. FDL is about free documentation. 

--

-- 
Jérôme Marant

headers

Scott James Remnant | 20 Aug 2003 17:26

Re: Debian Weekly News - August 19th, 2003

On Wed, 2003-08-20 at 08:35, Jérôme Marant wrote:

> Quoting Josselin Mouette <josselin.mouette <at> ens-lyon.org>:
> 
> > Le mar 19/08/2003 à 23:33, Mike Hommey a écrit :
> > > Ok, let's google a bit, and.... shazaam !
> > >
> > http://www.linex.org/sources/linex/debian/linex/nvidia-glx_1.0.4349-1_i386.deb
> > > Oh ! non-free software !
> > > 
> > > Thanks Richard for keeping me laughing.
> > 
> > Bah, if RMS really didn't like non-free software, he would give up with
> > that FDL stuff...
> 
> No he wouldn't. FDL is about free documentation. 
> 
Except it isn't 

Scott
--

-- 
Have you ever, ever felt like this?
Had strange things happen?  Are you going round the twist?

headers

Jérôme Marant | 20 Aug 2003 17:30

Re: Debian Weekly News - August 19th, 2003

Quoting Scott James Remnant <scott <at> netsplit.com>:

> > No he wouldn't. FDL is about free documentation. 
> > 
> Except it isn't 

According to you 

--

-- 
Jérôme Marant <jerome.marant <at> free.fr>

headers

Peter S Galbraith | 20 Aug 2003 21:52

Re: Debian Weekly News - August 19th, 2003

Jérôme Marant <jerome.marant <at> free.fr> wrote:

> Quoting Scott James Remnant <scott <at> netsplit.com>:
> 
> > > No he wouldn't. FDL is about free documentation. 
> > > 
> > Except it isn't 
> 
> According to you 

According to debian-legal consensus.

headers

Jérôme Marant | 21 Aug 2003 09:33

Re: Debian Weekly News - August 19th, 2003

Quoting Peter S Galbraith <p.galbraith <at> globetrotter.net>:

> Jérôme Marant <jerome.marant <at> free.fr> wrote:
> 
> > Quoting Scott James Remnant <scott <at> netsplit.com>:
> > 
> > > > No he wouldn't. FDL is about free documentation. 
> > > > 
> > > Except it isn't 
> > 
> > According to you 
> 
> According to debian-legal consensus.

Is there any? John's message proves that there isn't any yet, IMO.

--

-- 
Jérôme Marant <jerome.marant <at> free.fr>

headers

Josselin Mouette | 21 Aug 2003 19:32

Re: Debian Weekly News - August 19th, 2003

Le jeu 21/08/2003 à 09:33, Jérôme Marant a écrit :
> > According to debian-legal consensus.
> 
> Is there any? John's message proves that there isn't any yet, IMO.

I have trouble with the concept of another "nonono gfdl is free because
there is free in the acronym" message affecting the consensus.
--

-- 
 .''`.           Josselin Mouette        /\./\
: :' :           josselin.mouette <at> ens-lyon.org
`. `'                        joss <at> debian.org
  `-  Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom

headers

Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker | 21 Aug 2003 10:54

Re: Debian Weekly News - August 19th, 2003

Jérôme Marant <jerome.marant <at> free.fr> writes:

> Quoting Peter S Galbraith <p.galbraith <at> globetrotter.net>:
>
>> Jérôme Marant <jerome.marant <at> free.fr> wrote:
>> 
>>> Quoting Scott James Remnant <scott <at> netsplit.com>:
>>> 
>>>>> No he wouldn't. FDL is about free documentation. 
>>>> 
>>>> Except it isn't 
>>> 
>>> According to you 
>> 
>> According to debian-legal consensus.
>
> Is there any? John's message proves that there isn't any yet, IMO.

  consensus 
       n : agreement of the majority in sentiment or belief
           [syn: {general agreement}]

  unanimity
       n : everyone being of one mind

A world of difference.

--

-- 
ilmari

(Continue reading)

headers

Jérôme Marant | 21 Aug 2003 12:18

Re: Debian Weekly News - August 19th, 2003

Quoting Dagfinn Ilmari MannsÃ¥ker <ilmari <at> ilmari.org>:

>   consensus 
>        n : agreement of the majority in sentiment or belief
>            [syn: {general agreement}]
> 
>   unanimity
>        n : everyone being of one mind
> 
> 
> A world of difference.

No, no, no! You don't get it. There may be a majority among the
debian-legal zealots, but we need a consensus among Debian as a
whole (which means voting of course).

We musn't let the bigots decide for us! 

--

-- 
Jérôme Marant

headers

Andreas Metzler | 22 Aug 2003 02:28

Re: Debian Weekly News - August 19th, 2003

Jérôme Marant <jmarant=GANU6spQydw <at> public.gmane.org> wrote:
> Quoting Dagfinn Ilmari MannsÃ¥ker <ilmari=tchPMd8ywMUdnm+yROfE0A <at> public.gmane.org>:
>>   consensus 
>>        n : agreement of the majority in sentiment or belief
>>            [syn: {general agreement}]

>>   unanimity
>>        n : everyone being of one mind

>> A world of difference.

> No, no, no! You don't get it. There may be a majority among the
> debian-legal zealots, but we need a consensus among Debian as a
> whole (which means voting of course).

> We musn't let the bigots decide for us! 

ROTFL.

Am I the only one who interpreted this as a joke?  Humpf, as even
Branden sent a sincere follow-up I think I am missing something
important. Perhaps the word "cabal" was missing? Throwing in some
"darn" might have helped, too.

Jérôme, please use "darn cabal of debian-legal zealots" next time.
   cu and- triple reading the original mail, stil smiling -reas

headers

Richard Braakman | 22 Aug 2003 16:09

Re: Debian Weekly News - August 19th, 2003

On Fri, Aug 22, 2003 at 02:28:52AM +0200, Andreas Metzler wrote:
> Jérôme, please use "darn cabal of debian-legal zealots" next time.
>    cu and- triple reading the original mail, stil smiling -reas

And don't forget to call them "licensing geeks"!

Richard Braakman

headers

Jérôme Marant | 22 Aug 2003 16:53

Re: Debian Weekly News - August 19th, 2003

Quoting Richard Braakman <dark <at> xs4all.nl>:

> On Fri, Aug 22, 2003 at 02:28:52AM +0200, Andreas Metzler wrote:
> > Jérôme, please use "darn cabal of debian-legal zealots" next time.
> >    cu and- triple reading the original mail, stil smiling -reas
> 
> And don't forget to call them "licensing geeks"!

Do you think such an expression would provoke the same emotional
response? 

--

-- 
Jérôme Marant

headers

Andrew Suffield | 22 Aug 2003 17:39

Re: Debian Weekly News - August 19th, 2003

On Fri, Aug 22, 2003 at 04:53:30PM +0200, J?r?me Marant wrote:
> Quoting Richard Braakman <dark <at> xs4all.nl>:
> 
> > On Fri, Aug 22, 2003 at 02:28:52AM +0200, Andreas Metzler wrote:
> > > J?r?me, please use "darn cabal of debian-legal zealots" next time.
> > >    cu and- triple reading the original mail, stil smiling -reas
> > 
> > And don't forget to call them "licensing geeks"!
> 
> Do you think such an expression would provoke the same emotional
> response? 

"What is this lunatic blabbering about?" ?

Yes, I think it would.

--

-- 
  .''`.  ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
 : :' :  http://www.debian.org/ |
 `. `'                          |
   `-             -><-          |

headers

Jérôme Marant | 22 Aug 2003 10:23

Re: Debian Weekly News - August 19th, 2003

Quoting Andreas Metzler <ametzler <at> downhill.at.eu.org>:

> ROTFL.
> 
> Am I the only one who interpreted this as a joke?  Humpf, as even
> Branden sent a sincere follow-up I think I am missing something
> important. Perhaps the word "cabal" was missing? Throwing in some
> "darn" might have helped, too.
> 
> Jérôme, please use "darn cabal of debian-legal zealots" next time.
>    cu and- triple reading the original mail, stil smiling -reas

Ah! There is at least someone in this project with some sense of
humour.

--

-- 
Jérôme Marant

headers

Matthew Palmer | 21 Aug 2003 17:20

Re: Debian Weekly News - August 19th, 2003

Jérôme Marant said:
> Quoting Dagfinn Ilmari MannsÃ¥ker <ilmari <at> ilmari.org>:
>>   consensus
>>        n : agreement of the majority in sentiment or belief
>>            [syn: {general agreement}]
>>
>>   unanimity
>>        n : everyone being of one mind
>>
>>
>> A world of difference.
>
> No, no, no! You don't get it. There may be a majority among the
> debian-legal zealots, but we need a consensus among Debian as a
> whole (which means voting of course).
>
> We musn't let the bigots decide for us! 

Oh, get stuffed.  Of the people who are interested enough in matters legal
to subscribe to -legal, it's becoming fairly obvious (from Branden's
survey posted earlier today and the subsequent replies) that the consensus
is that the GFDL is either totally rooted or at least partially rooted,
DFSG-wise.
Insisting on a vote, hoping that the apathetic masses will support you
when those who care don't, strikes me as, at best, hopelessly optimistic,
and, at worst, downright delusional.
Ever heard the phrase "the lurkers support me in e-mail" from the loser in
an argument?  Are you seeing any analogies?
- Matt

(Continue reading)

headers

Scott James Remnant | 21 Aug 2003 17:28

Re: Debian Weekly News - August 19th, 2003

On Thu, 2003-08-21 at 11:18, Jérôme Marant wrote:

> No, no, no! You don't get it. There may be a majority among the
> debian-legal zealots, but we need a consensus among Debian as a
> whole (which means voting of course).
> 
mailto:debian-legal-request <at> lists.debian.org?subject=subscribe

> We musn't let the bigots decide for us! 
> 
<http://lists.debian.org/debian-newmaint-discuss/2000/debian-newmaint-discuss-200009/msg00086.html>

	"Jerome demonstrated a clear understanding of the Social
	 Contract and the Debian Free Software Guidelines."

Perhaps you would care to re-read the Social Contract and DFSG?  Your
understanding seems to have wavered.

Scott
--

-- 
Have you ever, ever felt like this?
Had strange things happen?  Are you going round the twist?

headers

Jérôme Marant | 22 Aug 2003 09:58

Re: Debian Weekly News - August 19th, 2003

Quoting Scott James Remnant <scott <at> netsplit.com>:

> On Thu, 2003-08-21 at 11:18, JÃ©rÃ´me Marant wrote:
> 
> > No, no, no! You don't get it. There may be a majority among the
> > debian-legal zealots, but we need a consensus among Debian as a
> > whole (which means voting of course).
> > 
> mailto:debian-legal-request <at> lists.debian.org?subject=subscribe
> 
> > We musn't let the bigots decide for us! 
> > 
>
<http://lists.debian.org/debian-newmaint-discuss/2000/debian-newmaint-discuss-200009/msg00086.html>
> 
> 	"Jerome demonstrated a clear understanding of the Social
> 	 Contract and the Debian Free Software Guidelines."
> 
> Perhaps you would care to re-read the Social Contract and DFSG?  Your
> understanding seems to have wavered.

Dear Scott,

Thanks for feeding the troll !
I have a clear understanding of the DFSG but it hasn't been written
anywere that documentation is software. Nobody managed to convince
me after many discussions on debian-legal.
I tend to agree with John Goerzen, see "Inconsistencies in our approach"
thread.

(Continue reading)

headers

Branden Robinson | 22 Aug 2003 19:06

Re: Debian Weekly News - August 19th, 2003

[Followups set.]

On Fri, Aug 22, 2003 at 09:58:30AM +0200, Jérôme Marant wrote:
> Branden's survey is misleading and assumes that documentation is
> software. It is unfair and doesn't count. 

No, my survey is narrowly scoped.

It is not the job of the debian-legal mailing list, as I understand it,
to distinguish between "documentation" and "software" for the rest of
the Project, nor -- more to the point -- to manufacture and apply
"Debian Free Documentation Guidelines" when none have been proposed or
ratified by the Project.

The role of the debian-legal mailing list is to formulate, as best it
can, recommendations on the legal issues to the rest of the Project, and
have discussions of legal issues relevant to Debian that are more
germane on that list than any other.

The Social Contract[1] says that Debian "will remain 100% Free
Software", and that the Debian Free Software Guidelines shall be a tool
that we use to for determining whether something in the Debian
distribution is Free Software or not.  Debian Developers have pledged to
act to uphold the Social Contract and DFSG.  If you want to change them,
you know the process.  But do not attempt to subvert them by attempting
to persuade people that clause 1 of the Social Contract says things it
obviously does not.

Whether "documentation is software", whether we need fewer freedoms
for "documentation" than we do for "software", and whether and how we

(Continue reading)

headers

John Goerzen | 22 Aug 2003 22:34

Re: Debian Weekly News - August 19th, 2003

On Fri, Aug 22, 2003 at 12:06:39PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 22, 2003 at 09:58:30AM +0200, Jérôme Marant wrote:
> > Branden's survey is misleading and assumes that documentation is
> > software. It is unfair and doesn't count. 
> 
> No, my survey is narrowly scoped.
> 
> The Social Contract[1] says that Debian "will remain 100% Free
> Software", and that the Debian Free Software Guidelines shall be a tool
> that we use to for determining whether something in the Debian
> distribution is Free Software or not.  Debian Developers have pledged to

The corrolary is that 0% of Debian is non-free software.  Documentation is
not software at all.

The mere fact that the social contract says that 100% of Debian is Free
Software does not magically make everything that is part of Debian
"software".  Just saying something is so is begging the question, and I am
getting tired of that game.

> act to uphold the Social Contract and DFSG.  If you want to change them,
> you know the process.  But do not attempt to subvert them by attempting
> to persuade people that clause 1 of the Social Contract says things it
> obviously does not.

If you take Clause 1 of the Social Contract to literally mean that Debian
contains nothing save software that is free, then that clause has never been
true since it was introduced, since we have always contained many
non-software items (documentation, bibles, Linux Gazette issues, RFCs,
graphics, wallpapers, sounds, etc.)

(Continue reading)

headers

Branden Robinson | 24 Aug 2003 09:06

Re: Debian Weekly News - August 19th, 2003

[John:

Not only did you ignore my Mail-Followup-To header, to which I drew your
attention in the very first line of my reply, but you mailed me a
private copy of your message.

Please review the Debian Mailing List Code of Conduct.

Followups set, AGAIN.]

On Fri, Aug 22, 2003 at 03:34:06PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 22, 2003 at 12:06:39PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > The Social Contract[1] says that Debian "will remain 100% Free
> > Software", and that the Debian Free Software Guidelines shall be a tool
> > that we use to for determining whether something in the Debian
> > distribution is Free Software or not.  Debian Developers have pledged to
> 
> The corrolary is that 0% of Debian is non-free software.  Documentation is
> not software at all.

I see you have not taken my advice to read the archives of debian-legal.

http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2001/debian-legal-200112/msg00027.html

"The Social Contract does not say: Debian Will Remain 100% Free Software
and Some Other Things That Aren't Software But Which Are Also Free But
Meet a Different Definition Of Free Than That Which Applies to Software,
Plus Some Other Stuff That Isn't Free By Any Stretch Of The Imagination
But Which We Thought Would Be Nice To Have."

(Continue reading)

headers

John Goerzen | 24 Aug 2003 15:53

Re: Debian Weekly News - August 19th, 2003

On Sun, Aug 24, 2003 at 02:06:04AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:

> Not only did you ignore my Mail-Followup-To header, to which I drew your
> attention in the very first line of my reply, but you mailed me a
> private copy of your message.

I always use "g" to respond to mailing list posts in mutt.  It has worked
fine before.  I have no idea why would be the exception (even if I hit "r",
it should still obey that header).  I'm runnting mutt 1.5.4 if it's anything
to you.  I do not regularly inspect the result of hitting that command
because I've not had any reason to doubt its accuracy.

> > The corrolary is that 0% of Debian is non-free software.  Documentation is
> > not software at all.
> 
> I see you have not taken my advice to read the archives of debian-legal.
> 
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2001/debian-legal-200112/msg00027.html
> 
> "The Social Contract does not say: Debian Will Remain 100% Free Software
> and Some Other Things That Aren't Software But Which Are Also Free But
> Meet a Different Definition Of Free Than That Which Applies to Software,
> Plus Some Other Stuff That Isn't Free By Any Stretch Of The Imagination
> But Which We Thought Would Be Nice To Have."

Which is an interesting post indeed, though I think that particular quote is
taking things to an unwarranted extreme.

> > The mere fact that the social contract says that 100% of Debian is Free
> > Software does not magically make everything that is part of Debian

(Continue reading)

headers

Branden Robinson | 25 Aug 2003 23:47

Re: Debian Weekly News - August 19th, 2003

On Sun, Aug 24, 2003 at 08:53:24AM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
> I always use "g" to respond to mailing list posts in mutt.

That's not a good practice.  It will send private replies to people who
don't want them.  Use "L" instead.

If that doesn't work, you need to use the "subscribe" and "lists"
commands in your .muttrc.  See /usr/share/doc/mutt/.

> > http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2001/debian-legal-200112/msg00027.html
> > 
> > "The Social Contract does not say: Debian Will Remain 100% Free Software
> > and Some Other Things That Aren't Software But Which Are Also Free But
> > Meet a Different Definition Of Free Than That Which Applies to Software,
> > Plus Some Other Stuff That Isn't Free By Any Stretch Of The Imagination
> > But Which We Thought Would Be Nice To Have."
> 
> Which is an interesting post indeed, though I think that particular quote is
> taking things to an unwarranted extreme.

It's precisely what certain agitators on debian-legal appear to be
pursuing.

> Then I don't understand.  Why do you continue bringing up the "100% Free
> Software" if not to assert that everything in Debian is Free Software, and
> thus the DFSG applies?

Because I have a contextal, operational definition of "software"
vis-a-vis the Social Contract and DFSG, not a metaphysical or
ontological one.

(Continue reading)

headers

John Goerzen | 28 Aug 2003 20:54

Re: Debian Weekly News - August 19th, 2003

On Mon, Aug 25, 2003 at 04:47:29PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > > http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2001/debian-legal-200112/msg00027.html
> > > "The Social Contract does not say: Debian Will Remain 100% Free Software
> > > and Some Other Things That Aren't Software But Which Are Also Free But
> > > Meet a Different Definition Of Free Than That Which Applies to Software,
> > > Plus Some Other Stuff That Isn't Free By Any Stretch Of The Imagination
> > > But Which We Thought Would Be Nice To Have."
> > Which is an interesting post indeed, though I think that particular quote is
> > taking things to an unwarranted extreme.
> It's precisely what certain agitators on debian-legal appear to be
> pursuing.

Well, I am not among them.  I think software standards could be modified to
make them better applicable to non-software items, and I am not advocating
that for the purpose of relaxing standards for non-software items.

> > Then I don't understand.  Why do you continue bringing up the "100% Free
> > Software" if not to assert that everything in Debian is Free Software, and
> > thus the DFSG applies?
> 
> Because I have a contextal, operational definition of "software"
> vis-a-vis the Social Contract and DFSG, not a metaphysical or
> ontological one.

I think you may have hit the crux of the disagreement there, though I would
call my own definition of software concrete rather than metaphysical.

I think that software is software, and if I pick up an Emacs manual or the
bat book, I'm not going to think it's software.  I think that contextual
approach ultimately leads to greater confusion, and that we should instead

(Continue reading)

headers

Richard Braakman | 26 Aug 2003 00:26

Re: Debian Weekly News - August 19th, 2003

On Mon, Aug 25, 2003 at 04:47:29PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> It is my hope that those people can be LARTed into submission on -legal,
> as there is no evidence to support their "silent majority" hypotheses.

Tactically, I think it's better to actually convince these people than
to LART them into submission :)  It's tiresome and (for us) repetitive,
but it'll be worthwhile.  The arguments that brought you and Thomas
Bushnell from opposing sides to the same side ought to be strong enough
to convince *anyone*.  Lately, the problem in the discussion seems to
be one of nailing down what the actual area of disagreement is.

> (In fact, I suspect that all "silent majority" claims are unfalsifiable
> by definition.)

Not if you can corner a piece of that majority, poll it, and extrapolate
the poll results.

Richard Braakman

headers

Branden Robinson | 26 Aug 2003 22:47

Re: Debian Weekly News - August 19th, 2003

On Tue, Aug 26, 2003 at 01:26:44AM +0300, Richard Braakman wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 25, 2003 at 04:47:29PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > (In fact, I suspect that all "silent majority" claims are unfalsifiable
> > by definition.)
> 
> Not if you can corner a piece of that majority, poll it, and extrapolate
> the poll results.

If they respond to the poll, they're not "silent" anymore.

Go ahead, measure the particle's momentum without observing it...

--

-- 
G. Branden Robinson                |      "There is no gravity in space."
Debian GNU/Linux                   |      "Then how could astronauts walk
branden <at> debian.org                 |       around on the Moon?"
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |      "Because they wore heavy boots."

headers

John Goerzen | 24 Aug 2003 21:33

Re: Debian Weekly News - August 19th, 2003

On Sun, Aug 24, 2003 at 08:53:24AM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
> I was responding to your post at
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2003/debian-devel-200308/msg03193.html,
> which among other things appeared to assert that everything in Debian is
> software, and that I am "willing to compromise the freedoms of their fellow
> developers and our users".  That I objected to strongly, as it is most
> certainly not the case, nor has it ever been for me.

Perhaps I should explain at this point what I was and am trying to do.

Being aware that discussions had been held regarding the GFDL's
DFSG-freeness for a long time, one thought that occured to me was: is this
even the right approach?

Towards that end, a couple of things occured to me: 1) documentation is not
actually software, and 2) if we assume that every bit of data in Debian is
Software, then we are distributing non-free software all over the place
(especially wrt license statements).

Neither of these seem good alternatives to me.  The fact that the GFDL
discussion has taken these 2+ years already is a good indication that
applying the "software" guidelines to documentation has not been as
straightforward a process as it should (granted, there were other obstacles,
but I don't think they can account for all that time by themselves).

My goal in this is not to devise some scheme whereby the GFDL or the RFCs
get back in main.  I want us instead to come up with some more concrete
guidelines -- even if they are just "here's how we apply software rules to
non-software items on debian-legal".  That, I think, will make it easier for
everyone to be able to judge the acceptibility of non-software items,

(Continue reading)

headers

Branden Robinson | 25 Aug 2003 23:50

Re: Debian Weekly News - August 19th, 2003

On Sun, Aug 24, 2003 at 02:33:57PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
> Being aware that discussions had been held regarding the GFDL's
> DFSG-freeness for a long time, one thought that occured to me was: is this
> even the right approach?
> 
> Towards that end, a couple of things occured to me: 1) documentation is not
> actually software, and 2) if we assume that every bit of data in Debian is
> Software, then we are distributing non-free software all over the place
> (especially wrt license statements).

I'm not going to respond to this message except to point you to this:

http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2001/debian-legal-200112/msg00250.html

PLEASE NOTE: I no longer stand by my assertions in points 2) and 3) of
the "impact statement", but I continue to stand by the "PROPOSAL" as
such.

If you'll rebut that message, I'll rebut yours.

--

-- 
G. Branden Robinson                |      It doesn't matter what you are
Debian GNU/Linux                   |      doing, emacs is always overkill.
branden <at> debian.org                 |      -- Stephen J. Carpenter
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |

headers

John Goerzen | 28 Aug 2003 20:36

Re: Debian Weekly News - August 19th, 2003

On Mon, Aug 25, 2003 at 04:50:51PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> I'm not going to respond to this message except to point you to this:
> 
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2001/debian-legal-200112/msg00250.html
> 
> PLEASE NOTE: I no longer stand by my assertions in points 2) and 3) of
> the "impact statement", but I continue to stand by the "PROPOSAL" as
> such.

I have no disagreement with that proposal on a practical level, so I'm not
sure what there is that you want me to rebut.

If you approach this from my perspective, where licenses are not software,
this appears to be a strengthening to the DFSG.

If you apprach this from the perspective that every bit in Debian is
software, then this would appear to be weakening the DFSG by permitting an
exception to its regular rules.

Not that this is not a necessary exception if you hold that view, but it
seems rather odd for us to say "Well yes, everything in Debian is software
and the DFSG applies to it all... but wait, licenses are exempt from some
provisions..."

Since I don't hold that view, I'm in agreement with you

headers

Branden Robinson | 28 Aug 2003 23:30

Re: Debian Weekly News - August 19th, 2003

On Thu, Aug 28, 2003 at 01:36:50PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
> > http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2001/debian-legal-200112/msg00250.html
[...]
> I have no disagreement with that proposal on a practical level, so I'm not
> sure what there is that you want me to rebut.
> 
> If you approach this from my perspective, where licenses are not software,
> this appears to be a strengthening to the DFSG.

Not to me.  If types of works don't have to be treated as "software",
then one wonders what types of works those are, and it seems easier to
carve out further exceptions to satisfy the desires of some pressure
group.

> If you apprach this from the perspective that every bit in Debian is
> software, then this would appear to be weakening the DFSG by permitting an
> exception to its regular rules.

Not to me.  It's simply frank acknowledgement of a fact of life; we
*have* to ship this legal meta-data that accompanies most of our
software, or we have immediate and grave practical problems.

Furthermore, Bruce Perens has made it clear over on -legal that my
interpretative guideline is closer to the original intention of the
DFSG.

> Not that this is not a necessary exception if you hold that view, but it
> seems rather odd for us to say "Well yes, everything in Debian is software
> and the DFSG applies to it all... but wait, licenses are exempt from some
> provisions..."

(Continue reading)

headers

Don Armstrong | 23 Aug 2003 01:43

Re: Debian Weekly News - August 19th, 2003

On Fri, 22 Aug 2003, John Goerzen wrote:
> The corrolary is that 0% of Debian is non-free software.
> Documentation is not software at all.

Ah. So we're 97% Free Software, 3% Documentation, and 0% Non-Free
Software.[1]

Thanks for clearing that up.

> If you take Clause 1 of the Social Contract to literally mean that
> Debian contains nothing save software that is free, then that clause
> has never been true since it was introduced, since we have always
> contained many non-software items (documentation, bibles, Linux
> Gazette issues, RFCs, graphics, wallpapers, sounds, etc.)

But typically those files have had the same freedoms that software has
in Debian. In cases where they don't, RC bugs have been filed and
stinks raised. [IE, for RFC's, and GFDL'ed documentation.]

Regardless, if Debian wants to include documentation that is not free
under the DFSG, it pretty much has to do so via GR. 

Why don't you draft and propose a GR on -project that modifies the
Social Contract and provides a DFDG or similar to remove this
ambiguity?

Until that point, I don't really see -legal and/or ftpmaster doing
much else than conservatively interpreting and acting upon the Social
Contract and the DFSG.

(Continue reading)

headers

Josip Rodin | 23 Aug 2003 13:04

Re: Debian Weekly News - August 19th, 2003

On Fri, Aug 22, 2003 at 04:43:03PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
> > > But do not attempt to subvert [the Social Contract and DFSG] by
> > > attempting to persuade people that clause 1 of the Social Contract
> > > says things it obviously does not.
> > 
> > If you take Clause 1 of the Social Contract to literally mean that
> > Debian contains nothing save software that is free, then that clause
> > has never been true since it was introduced, since we have always
> > contained many non-software items (documentation, bibles, Linux
> > Gazette issues, RFCs, graphics, wallpapers, sounds, etc.)
> 
> But typically those files have had the same freedoms that software has
> in Debian. In cases where they don't, RC bugs have been filed and
> stinks raised. [IE, for RFC's, and GFDL'ed documentation.]

> I don't really see -legal and/or ftpmaster doing much else than
> conservatively interpreting and acting upon the Social Contract
> and the DFSG.

Let's not pretend that there's suddenly some infinite amount of conservative
morality in starting to interpret the old documents differently from how
they were interpreted when all this Evil and Wrong(tm) non-free
documentation came into Debian. Striving for non-restricted documentation
is a fine thing to do, but the present situation is simply not that
black and white. All those "RC" bugs are still not closed for a reason.

--

-- 
     2. That which causes joy or happiness.

(Continue reading)

headers

Dmitry Borodaenko | 22 Aug 2003 12:14

Re: Debian Weekly News - August 19th, 2003

On Fri, Aug 22, 2003 at 09:58:30AM +0200, J?r?me Marant wrote:
 JrmM> Branden's survey is misleading and assumes that documentation is
 JrmM> software. It is unfair and doesn't count. 

Hey, Branden, how about another survey, about whether documentation is
software or not, and whether documentation is subject to DFSG, or not?
Just to kill all those darn trolls once and for all? 

For me, this was clear even before Bruce Perens replied to debian-legal
about his understanding of this matter.

--

-- 
Dmitry Borodaenko

headers

Branden Robinson | 22 Aug 2003 19:15

Re: Debian Weekly News - August 19th, 2003

On Fri, Aug 22, 2003 at 01:14:40PM +0300, Dmitry Borodaenko wrote:
> Hey, Branden, how about another survey, about whether documentation is
> software or not,

I'm not interested in circulating such a survey.  Someone else may wish
to, but debian-legal is not an appropriate list for it -- I recommend
debian-project instead.

> and whether documentation is subject to DFSG, or not?

According to clause 1 of the Debian Social Contract[1], everything
("100%") in the Debian GNU/Linux distribution is and must remain Free
Software, and we are compelled to use the Debian Free Software
Guidelines to evaluate whether the things in the Debian GNU/Linux
distribution are Free Software or not.

> Just to kill all those darn trolls once and for all? 

That will never happen.  There will always be people willing to
compromise the freedoms of their fellow developers and our users so that
they can enjoy having a particular set of bits in our distribution.

[1] http://www.debian.org/social_contract

--

-- 
G. Branden Robinson                |    Of two competing theories or
Debian GNU/Linux                   |    explanations, all other things
branden <at> debian.org                 |    being equal, the simpler one is to
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |    be preferred.      -- Occam's Razor

(Continue reading)

headers

Branden Robinson | 22 Aug 2003 04:36

Re: Debian Weekly News - August 19th, 2003

On Thu, Aug 21, 2003 at 04:28:07PM +0100, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> On Thu, 2003-08-21 at 11:18, Jérôme Marant wrote:
> > We musn't let the bigots decide for us! 
> > 
> <http://lists.debian.org/debian-newmaint-discuss/2000/debian-newmaint-discuss-200009/msg00086.html>
> 
> 	"Jerome demonstrated a clear understanding of the Social
> 	 Contract and the Debian Free Software Guidelines."
> 
> Perhaps you would care to re-read the Social Contract and DFSG?  Your
> understanding seems to have wavered.

Easy, captain.

I share Miles Bader's reading of the tone of your message, and I share
his concern.

Ideologies exist to serve people, not the other way around.  The utility
of an ideology is that it reinforces purposeful and goal-oriented
behavior.  It is contrary to my understanding of the Debian Project for
us to attempt to enforce an orthodoxy, or punish heresy, with respect to
the *opinions* that our Developers share with each other.

What we *do* expect is an adherence to a consensus-based understanding
of the Social Contract and Debian Free Software Guidelines when it comes
to our work products, such as the Debian GNU/Linux operating system.

Thus, while I would expect some form of disciplinary action to be taken
against a developer who deliberately inserted non-free software into
main repeatedly, I do not think it is wise for us to attempt to suppress

(Continue reading)

headers

Miles Bader | 22 Aug 2003 04:02

Re: Debian Weekly News - August 19th, 2003

Scott James Remnant <scott <at> netsplit.com> writes:
> 	"Jerome demonstrated a clear understanding of the Social
> 	 Contract and the Debian Free Software Guidelines."
> 
> Perhaps you would care to re-read the Social Contract and DFSG?  Your
> understanding seems to have wavered.

It's off to the re-education camps with him, then!

[Do you realize how creepy what you just said sounds?]

-Miles
--

-- 
Fast, small, soon; pick any 2.

headers

Scott James Remnant | 22 Aug 2003 04:19

Re: Debian Weekly News - August 19th, 2003

On Fri, 2003-08-22 at 03:02, Miles Bader wrote:

> Scott James Remnant <scott <at> netsplit.com> writes:
> > 	"Jerome demonstrated a clear understanding of the Social
> > 	 Contract and the Debian Free Software Guidelines."
> > 
> > Perhaps you would care to re-read the Social Contract and DFSG?  Your
> > understanding seems to have wavered.
> 
> It's off to the re-education camps with him, then!
> 
> [Do you realize how creepy what you just said sounds?]
> 
Bah, my X-Tongue-In-Cheek header fell off again :o)

Scott
--

-- 
Have you ever, ever felt like this?
Had strange things happen?  Are you going round the twist?

headers

Branden Robinson | 21 Aug 2003 21:51

Re: Debian Weekly News - August 19th, 2003

On Thu, Aug 21, 2003 at 12:18:10PM +0200, Jérôme Marant wrote:
> We musn't let the bigots decide for us! 

Thanks for excusing yourself from the discussion thus.

--

-- 
G. Branden Robinson                |     Software engineering: that part of
Debian GNU/Linux                   |     computer science which is too
branden <at> debian.org                 |     difficult for the computer
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |     scientist.

headers

Jérôme Marant | 22 Aug 2003 10:17

Re: Debian Weekly News - August 19th, 2003

Quoting Branden Robinson <branden <at> debian.org>:

> On Thu, Aug 21, 2003 at 12:18:10PM +0200, Jérôme Marant wrote:
> > We musn't let the bigots decide for us! 
> 
> Thanks for excusing yourself from the discussion thus.

Where has you sense of humour gone?

More seriously, I do not consider that documentation is software
and this is the reason why I don't know how to reply to you
survey: is this another way to exclude people from discussions?
I cannot imagine it wasn't deliberate.

--

-- 
Jérôme Marant

headers

Branden Robinson | 22 Aug 2003 19:19

Re: Debian Weekly News - August 19th, 2003

On Fri, Aug 22, 2003 at 10:17:04AM +0200, Jérôme Marant wrote:
> Quoting Branden Robinson <branden <at> debian.org>:
> > On Thu, Aug 21, 2003 at 12:18:10PM +0200, Jérôme Marant wrote:
> > > We musn't let the bigots decide for us! 
> > 
> > Thanks for excusing yourself from the discussion thus.
> 
> Where has you sense of humour gone?

Not to a land where accusations of bigotry are recognized as humor.

> More seriously, I do not consider that documentation is software
> and this is the reason why I don't know how to reply to you
> survey:

I guess you can select the 4th option in Part 1.  If none of the first 3
options reasonably approximate your opinion, then you should have no
trouble marking option 4.

> is this another way to exclude people from discussions?

No.  It's a way to assess whether the "silent majority" arguments raised
by a few loud people on debian-legal, claiming that most people don't
really believe that the GNU FDL needs to satisfy the DFSG, are the real
consensus view.

Judging by the survey results so far, that claim would appear to be
signfificantly mistaken.

> I cannot imagine it wasn't deliberate.

(Continue reading)

headers

Richard Braakman | 23 Aug 2003 01:00

Re: Debian Weekly News - August 19th, 2003

On Fri, Aug 22, 2003 at 12:19:57PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> No.  It's a way to assess whether the "silent majority" arguments raised
> by a few loud people on debian-legal, claiming that most people don't
> really believe that the GNU FDL needs to satisfy the DFSG, are the real
> consensus view.

???

The survey asks whether the GFDL _does_ satisfy the DFSG, not whether
it needs to.  Did you misspeak here?

Richard Braakman

headers

Branden Robinson | 24 Aug 2003 09:10

Re: Debian Weekly News - August 19th, 2003

On Sat, Aug 23, 2003 at 02:00:49AM +0300, Richard Braakman wrote:
> The survey asks whether the GFDL _does_ satisfy the DFSG, not whether
> it needs to.  Did you misspeak here?

Yes.  I wrote that reply in hot blood.  I didn't write my survey thus.

--

-- 
G. Branden Robinson                |       Yesterday upon the stair,
Debian GNU/Linux                   |       I met a man who wasn't there.
branden <at> debian.org                 |       He wasn't there again today,
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |       I think he's from the CIA.

headers

Manoj Srivastava | 22 Aug 2003 16:06

Re: Debian Weekly News - August 19th, 2003

On Fri, 22 Aug 2003 10:17:04 +0200, Jérôme Marant <jmarant <at> free.fr> said: 

> Quoting Branden Robinson <branden <at> debian.org>:
>> On Thu, Aug 21, 2003 at 12:18:10PM +0200, Jérôme Marant wrote:
>> > We musn't let the bigots decide for us! 
>>
>> Thanks for excusing yourself from the discussion thus.

> Where has you sense of humour gone?

	Since when has insulting tour opponent in debate and appending
 the insult with a smiley or"just kidding" been a hallmark of humour,
 or even acceptable in civilized discourse?

	At the risk of invoking godwins law, if I accused you,
 surrounded by smilies, of being a member of a certain German
 political party from the early-to-mid part of the last century, or of
 being a pedophile, you'll be rolling in aisle with laughter?  

> More seriously, I do not consider that documentation is software and
> this is the reason why I don't know how to reply to you survey: is
> this another way to exclude people from discussions?  I cannot
> imagine it wasn't deliberate.

	So I take it you can't understand English? The 4 rth option
 (none of the statements above express what I think) somehow passed
 you by?

	And if you do not consider documentation to be distinct from
 software, you should be able to adress the issues I raised in

(Continue reading)

headers

Brian T. Sniffen | 22 Aug 2003 21:04

Re: Debian Weekly News - August 19th, 2003

Manoj Srivastava <srivasta <at> debian.org> writes:

>> More seriously, I do not consider that documentation is software and
>> this is the reason why I don't know how to reply to you survey: is
>> this another way to exclude people from discussions?  I cannot
>> imagine it wasn't deliberate.
>
> 	So I take it you can't understand English? The 4 rth option
>  (none of the statements above express what I think) somehow passed
>  you by?

Additionally, whether the DFSG should apply to documentation in Debian
is not relevant to the survey, which asks whether the GFDL complies
with the DFSG: we can deal with the insanity of whether this software
over here is or is not software later, but figuring out whether the
GFDL is a DFSG-free licence for software is also important.  That's
what the survey's asking about.

-Brian

--

-- 
Brian T. Sniffen                                        bts <at> alum.mit.edu
                       http://www.evenmere.org/~bts/

headers

Marco d'Itri | 23 Aug 2003 03:21

Re: Debian Weekly News - August 19th, 2003

On Aug 22, "Brian T. Sniffen" <bts <at> alum.mit.edu> wrote:

 >Additionally, whether the DFSG should apply to documentation in Debian
 >is not relevant to the survey, which asks whether the GFDL complies
 >with the DFSG: we can deal with the insanity of whether this software
 >over here is or is not software later, but figuring out whether the
 >GFDL is a DFSG-free licence for software is also important.  That's
 >what the survey's asking about.
I'd say that you have your priorities wrong. If we decide that
documentation is not software then there is no reason to waste time to
figure out if the GFDL is DFSG-free or not.

--

-- 
ciao, |
Marco | [1421 le2huYnaegCMI]

headers

Brian T. Sniffen | 24 Aug 2003 20:25

Re: Debian Weekly News - August 19th, 2003

"Marco d'Itri" <md <at> Linux.IT> writes:

> On Aug 22, "Brian T. Sniffen" <bts <at> alum.mit.edu> wrote:
>
>  >Additionally, whether the DFSG should apply to documentation in Debian
>  >is not relevant to the survey, which asks whether the GFDL complies
>  >with the DFSG: we can deal with the insanity of whether this software
>  >over here is or is not software later, but figuring out whether the
>  >GFDL is a DFSG-free licence for software is also important.  That's
>  >what the survey's asking about.
> I'd say that you have your priorities wrong. If we decide that
> documentation is not software then there is no reason to waste time to
> figure out if the GFDL is DFSG-free or not.

Of course there is: there is source code licensed under the GFDL in
several Debian packages.  In order to not have to do surgery on the
GNU Emacs and GCC packages, the GFDL will have to be found DFSG-free
anyway.

-Brian

headers

David Weinehall | 24 Aug 2003 21:11

Re: Debian Weekly News - August 19th, 2003

On Sun, Aug 24, 2003 at 02:25:51PM -0400, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
> "Marco d'Itri" <md <at> Linux.IT> writes:
> 
> > On Aug 22, "Brian T. Sniffen" <bts <at> alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> >
> >  >Additionally, whether the DFSG should apply to documentation in Debian
> >  >is not relevant to the survey, which asks whether the GFDL complies
> >  >with the DFSG: we can deal with the insanity of whether this software
> >  >over here is or is not software later, but figuring out whether the
> >  >GFDL is a DFSG-free licence for software is also important.  That's
> >  >what the survey's asking about.
> > I'd say that you have your priorities wrong. If we decide that
> > documentation is not software then there is no reason to waste time to
> > figure out if the GFDL is DFSG-free or not.
> 
> Of course there is: there is source code licensed under the GFDL in
> several Debian packages.  In order to not have to do surgery on the
> GNU Emacs and GCC packages, the GFDL will have to be found DFSG-free
> anyway.
> 
> -Brian

Pardon?  I seriously hope that you're being sarcastic, because trying to
bend over backwards and deliberately trying to misinterpret the DFSG
just to get accept certain software is just hipocrisy.  Yes, gcc would
be nearly impossible to replace, but reasonably one can assume that the
parts of it that are licensed under the GFDL are small enough that they
are replacable, either by using earlier versions of those files and
doing a lot of work on our own to redo the rest, or by rewriting them
from scratch.

(Continue reading)

headers

Brian T. Sniffen | 24 Aug 2003 21:47

Re: Debian Weekly News - August 19th, 2003

What I'm referring to is the excerpts of C and E-Lisp source in those
manuals.  They're clearly both documentation and software, even if you
don't believe that text can be both documentation and software.

I don't believe even the non-optional parts of the GFDL can be found
DFSG-free (as a software license), so something's going to have to
change.

-Brian

headers

Branden Robinson | 24 Aug 2003 09:09

Re: Debian Weekly News - August 19th, 2003

[Followups set.]

On Sat, Aug 23, 2003 at 03:21:00AM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> I'd say that you have your priorities wrong. If we decide that
> documentation is not software then there is no reason to waste time to
> figure out if the GFDL is DFSG-free or not.

It's not within debian-legal's purview to attempt to answer one
question; it is to attempt to answer the other.

If you want "documentation" to be subjected to a different standard than
"software" (whatever those are), then set about drafting that different
standard.

On debian-project.

So far no one has managed to do it.[1]

[1] draft a standard, *or* discuss this on the correct mailing list

--

-- 
G. Branden Robinson                |    Freedom is kind of a hobby with me,
Debian GNU/Linux                   |    and I have disposable income that
branden <at> debian.org                 |    I'll spend to find out how to get
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |    people more of it. -- Penn Jillette

headers

Gunnar Wolf | 21 Aug 2003 19:48

Re: Debian Weekly News - August 19th, 2003

Jérôme Marant dijo [Thu, Aug 21, 2003 at 12:18:10PM +0200]:
> >   consensus 
> >        n : agreement of the majority in sentiment or belief
> >            [syn: {general agreement}]
> > 
> >   unanimity
> >        n : everyone being of one mind
> > 
> > 
> > A world of difference.
> 
> No, no, no! You don't get it. There may be a majority among the
> debian-legal zealots, but we need a consensus among Debian as a
> whole (which means voting of course).
> 
> We musn't let the bigots decide for us! 

Well... If you really disagree with the 'bigots' on this, please join
debian-legal and join the opposition. I do think that most of us
non-'bigots' will agree with the consensus reached in debian-devel - Me
not joining that list means I don't have all the background (and, yes,
the interest) to debate their decision - and they are mostly people who
most of us hold in quite a nice position.

Now, why am I insisting in quoting the 'bigots'? Because they care.
Because being involved in all those convoluted discussions in our
behalf, in subjects we all care about but don't want to fuss over too
much makes them respectable people in my eyes.

Greetings,

(Continue reading)

headers

Jamin W. Collins | 20 Aug 2003 21:06

Re: Debian Weekly News - August 19th, 2003

On Wed, Aug 20, 2003 at 05:30:39PM +0200, J?r?me Marant wrote:
> Quoting Scott James Remnant <scott <at> netsplit.com>:
> 
> > > No he wouldn't. FDL is about free documentation. 
> > > 
> > Except it isn't 
> 
> According to you 

This has been covered to death already.  There are a sufficient number
of respondents that see it as non-free.  The RM's recent post indicates
that possibly the FSF has even come around to the idea that their
license is less than Free.  Can we please move along now?

--

-- 
Jamin W. Collins

Linux is not The Answer. Yes is the answer. Linux is The Question. - Neo

headers

Jérôme Marant | 21 Aug 2003 11:56

Re: Debian Weekly News - August 19th, 2003

Quoting "Jamin W. Collins" <jcollins <at> asgardsrealm.net>:

> This has been covered to death already.  There are a sufficient number
> of respondents that see it as non-free.  The RM's recent post indicates
> that possibly the FSF has even come around to the idea that their
> license is less than Free.  Can we please move along now?

Just don't read the thread.

--

-- 
Jérôme Marant

headers

Mike Hommey | 20 Aug 2003 01:43

Re: Debian Weekly News - August 19th, 2003

On Wednesday 20 August 2003 00:34, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le mar 19/08/2003 à 23:33, Mike Hommey a écrit :
> > Ok, let's google a bit, and.... shazaam !
> > http://www.linex.org/sources/linex/debian/linex/nvidia-glx_1.0.4349-1_i38
> >6.deb Oh ! non-free software !
> >
> > Thanks Richard for keeping me laughing.
>
> Bah, if RMS really didn't like non-free software, he would give up with
> that FDL stuff...

Did he ever say he didn't like non-free _documentation_ ?

Mike

headers

Scott James Remnant | 20 Aug 2003 02:16

Re: Debian Weekly News - August 19th, 2003

On Wed, 2003-08-20 at 00:43, Mike Hommey wrote:

> On Wednesday 20 August 2003 00:34, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> > Le mar 19/08/2003 à 23:33, Mike Hommey a écrit :
> > > Ok, let's google a bit, and.... shazaam !
> > > http://www.linex.org/sources/linex/debian/linex/nvidia-glx_1.0.4349-1_i38
> > >6.deb Oh ! non-free software !
> > >
> > > Thanks Richard for keeping me laughing.
> >
> > Bah, if RMS really didn't like non-free software, he would give up with
> > that FDL stuff...
> 
> Did he ever say he didn't like non-free _documentation_ ?
> 
  "The biggest deficiency in our free operating systems is not in the
   software--it is the lack of good free manuals that we can include in
   our systems.  Documentation is an essential part of any software
   package; when an important free software package does not come with a
   good free manual, that is a major gap.  We have many such gaps today.

  "Free documentation, like free software, is a matter of freedom, not
   price.  The criterion for a free manual is pretty much the same as for
   free software: it is a matter of giving all users certain freedoms.
   Redistribution (including commercial sale) must be permitted, on-line
   and on paper, so that the manual can accompany every copy of the
   program.

  "Permission for modification is crucial too."

(Continue reading)

headers

Mike Hommey | 20 Aug 2003 02:51

Re: Debian Weekly News - August 19th, 2003

On Wednesday 20 August 2003 02:16, Scott James Remnant wrote:
>   "The biggest deficiency in our free operating systems is not in the
>    software--it is the lack of good free manuals that we can include in
>    our systems.  Documentation is an essential part of any software
>    package; when an important free software package does not come with a
>    good free manual, that is a major gap.  We have many such gaps today.
>
>   "Free documentation, like free software, is a matter of freedom, not
>    price.  The criterion for a free manual is pretty much the same as for
>    free software: it is a matter of giving all users certain freedoms.
>    Redistribution (including commercial sale) must be permitted, on-line
>    and on paper, so that the manual can accompany every copy of the
>    program.
>
>   "Permission for modification is crucial too."
>
>   - Richard Stallman, 1998

Fantastic, GFDL doesn't even match his own words...

Mike

PS: BTW, he said free documentation was important, not that non-free 
documentation was evil ;)

headers

Peter S Galbraith | 20 Aug 2003 03:23

Re: Debian Weekly News - August 19th, 2003

Mike Hommey <mh <at> glandium.org> wrote:

> On Wednesday 20 August 2003 02:16, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> >   "The biggest deficiency in our free operating systems is not in the
> >    software--it is the lack of good free manuals that we can include in
> >    our systems.  Documentation is an essential part of any software
> >    package; when an important free software package does not come with a
> >    good free manual, that is a major gap.  We have many such gaps today.
> >
> >   "Free documentation, like free software, is a matter of freedom, not
> >    price.  The criterion for a free manual is pretty much the same as for
> >    free software: it is a matter of giving all users certain freedoms.
> >    Redistribution (including commercial sale) must be permitted, on-line
> >    and on paper, so that the manual can accompany every copy of the
> >    program.
> >
> >   "Permission for modification is crucial too."
> >
> >   - Richard Stallman, 1998
> 
> Fantastic, GFDL doesn't even match his own words...
> 
> Mike
> 
> PS: BTW, he said free documentation was important, not that non-free 
> documentation was evil ;)

He pretty much does say that in this article.  He also waffles about the
importance of being able to modify `technical' parts of the manual.

(Continue reading)

headers

Jérôme Marant | 20 Aug 2003 09:45

Re: Debian Weekly News - August 19th, 2003


Great, the debian-legal discussions moved to debian-devel.

Quoting Peter S Galbraith <p.galbraith <at> globetrotter.net>:

> Now consider that most or all of the FSF documentation for their GPL'ed
> software is released under the GFDL.  The licenses are incompatible so
> someone who forks a project cannot cut and paste text between the manual
> and the software that it documents.  Why don't they use the GPL for the
> docs?  What do they gain?  They gain an invariant section about free
> software;  very ironic isn't it.

Pasting a piece of manual in a program doesn't magically turn the
documentation into a program; so this is not about mixing too
different codes. Just like, inserting a piece of code into a manual
doesn't turn the piece of code into documentation where the documentation
license applies.

See John Goerzen's message "Inconsistencies in our approach" in
debian-legal.

--

-- 
Jérôme Marant