Re: REVISED PROPOSAL regarding DFSG 3 and 4, licenses, and modifiable text
HELP, PLEASE HELP!!!
Hackers have put my user id into
multiple redistributing lists of your technical forum.
I can't unsubcribe with automated system because
my user id is not in the main list.
Please help. I received tons of unwanted mails.
Please forward this request to the list owner.
Thanks
--- Branden Robinson <branden@debian.org> wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 02, 2001 at 10:46:32PM -0800, Thomas
> Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > Branden Robinson <branden@debian.org> writes:
> >
> > > I intend to. I'm sorry to offend you by asking
> people more familiar
> > > with the GNU Emacs Manual to assist.
> >
> > What bugs me is that you've now issued *TWO*
> proposals without
> > ascertaining their effect first. How many more
> times are you going to
> > make proposals before getting the facts down?? I
> hope "none", but I
> > fear otherwise.
>
> Debian is a collective effort. It is unreasonable
> to expect a person to
> vet all 6000 packages in the Distribution before
> issuing a proposal.
> One of the strengths of having a large and vital
> Project is that this
> kind of work can be parallelized. I did in fact
> research the impact of
> my proposals on several GNU manuals -- I don't know
> of anything else
> in Debian yet licensed under the GNU FDL -- and
> discussed the impact in
> my proposals. Failing to achieve 100% certainty in
> a proposal's effects
> is not the same thing as not ascertaining the effect
> at all.
>
> > Does your proposal contradict DFSG 3 or not?
>
> That is not a determination that you or I am solely
> empowered to make.
>
> > If it doesn't conflict: then it either is purely
> clarificatory, or
> > else it suggests restrictions beyond those
> required by DFSG.
>
> And in practice Debian has applied several
> restrictions in the past not
> clearly found in the DFSG. A review of the
> debian-legal archives will
> turn up some, but there is no centralized
> clearinghouse for this sort of
> information; no effort to collect precedent into a
> single location.
> Anthony Towns encouraged doing so. That none yet
> exists is a poor
> reason to object to me starting one.
>
> > If you want it to be purely clarificatory,
>
> Not purely, no, and I was rock-solid clear about
> this in the proposal.
>
> > If it's a new restriction (and I am not
> intrinsically opposed to new
> > restrictions), then I ask that it not restrict in
> such a way as to
> > cause packages currently in main to get thrown
> out.
>
> Asked and answered.
>
> Message-ID: <[🔎] 20011203044436.GB30855@deadbeast.net>
> "So anything failing DFSG 3 that happens to be in
> main due to an
> oversight should be grandfather by my proposal?
> That's what "no
> problems" means, and would be grounds for rejecting
> my proposal outright
> as an attempt to repeal DFSG 3.
>
> No, the existence of packages with unmodifiable text
> already in main is
> something that should inform our process, but cannot
> be determinative
> because of the possibility that there is already
> something in main that
> should not be. My proposal is a guideline, not a
> suicide pact.
>
> I believe Debian should have a standard a priori the
> GNU Emacs Manual
> (for example), and not reason backwards on the
> assumption that
> everything that is in main must belong there.
> People find DFSG
> violations in main regularly. The intent of my
> proposal is not to grant
> categorical immunity to any class of these
> violations."
>
> > 1) Do you believe your proposal to contradict the
> DFSG?
>
> No.
>
> > 2) If the answer to question (1) is "no", then do
> you see your
> > proposal as merely clarifying practice, or do
> you see it as
> > imposing an additional restriction beyond those
> currently believed
> > to obtain?
>
> Fallacious: false alternative.
>
> The proposal clarifies current practice, which is to
> *RELAX*
> the restrictions imposed by DFSG 3 and 4. It
> furthermore attempts to
> provide rules-of-thumb to help prevent us from
> relaxing these guidelines
> too greatly.
>
> Message-ID: <[🔎] 20011202091104.GA26475@deadbeast.net>
> "> As I understand it, a package that makes it into
> [main] complies
> > to all points of the DFSG. However, your proposal
> will allow
> > packages that don't fully comply the DFSG to enter
> [main], if
> > the violation is not too grave. I consider this
> inconsistent.
>
> Well, depends on what you mean by "comply". Under
> what I understand to
> be your interpretation of "comply", everything
> licensed under the GPL or
> LGPL would have to be removed from main because the
> text of these
> licensed is copyrighted and licensed under terms
> that forbid
> modification. I agree that this violates an
> iron-fisted interpretation
> of DFSG 3. However, the DFSG and Social Contract
> were passed when many,
> many GPL'ed packages were already part of Debian,
> and as far as I know,
> few people have ever proposed that GPL'ed software
> be removed from
> Debian. This isn't to say that non-modifiable text
> isn't solely a
> problem of the FSF's -- the BSD licenses are also
> affected, and, in a
> sense, anything with a copyright notice is as well.
> Interpret DFSG 3
> *THAT* strictly and there wouldn't be much left *in*
> Debian. Just
> public domain materials. We may as well just fold
> up shop and quit if
> that's the case."
>
> --
> G. Branden Robinson | Human
> beings rarely imagine a god
> Debian GNU/Linux | that
> behaves any better than a
> branden@debian.org | spoiled
> child.
> http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- Robert
> Heinlein
>
> ATTACHMENT part 2 application/pgp-signature
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Buy the perfect holiday gifts at Yahoo! Shopping.
http://shopping.yahoo.com
Reply to: