Re: Manoj, why are you suggesting to infringe the copyright law?
Hi,
*Sigh*. I see we must persist in adding to the volume of
debian-devel.
>>"Marcus" == Marcus Brinkmann <Marcus.Brinkmann@ruhr-uni-bochum.de> writes:
Marcus> On Sun, Aug 16, 1998 at 03:45:03PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> Stop lying, Marcus.
Marcus> I never did. Your words were very clear, and you repeated
Marcus> them multiple times, there is no room for wrong
Marcus> interpretation.
I know. And since you persist in doing so, I must conclude
you are lying. I never advocated anything that beraks copyright
law. And yet you persist in lying and besmirching my good name with
this subject (Hmm. Is this slander?)
Marcus> I too encourage anyone to get the whole
Marcus> picture by reading the relevant posts on the policy list.
>> No one is infringing the copyright law. I
>> am just suggesting a reorganiztion of information in debian. No one
>> is going to stop shipping the GPL in debian, it just will be in a
>> different place on the archive.
Marcus> As a matter of fact, I think it is already wrong that we
Marcus> don't ship the GPL, LGPL, BSD and Artistic license with the
Marcus> binary packages. And you were saying that you don't want
Marcus> immutable license documents in Debian main at all.
Yep. Not in main. But in verbatim, which is still part fo
Debian. Ad no law is broken. The license goves terms under which
distribution is possible. Nothing requires licenses to be bundled
with the products them selves.
Books are copyrighted too. What was the last tiem you say a
license on a paperback?
We distribute the licese as a courtesy. And even that is
satisfied as long as the license exists on the system
>> You fail to mention that one way of appeasing my arguments is
>> to allow stuff like the FSSTND in main, or atleast in verbatim.
Marcus> Something which is completely independent from this serious
Marcus> issue. If we ship FSSTND in main is completely independent
Marcus> from the fact if we ship the GPL in main.
Correct. But it provides context. Anyway, there is really no
legal requirement for shipping the GPL in main. And I am not
advocatig removing the GPL from Debian. Only removing it from main
into the verbatim section.
There is no legal requirement for us to distribute the
licenses at all. I agree it is a good idea to. And that we should.
>> I am sorry you can't conduct a technical discussion in a
>> decorous and serious fashion. I do not think your tantrums and name
>> calling really deserve much more of a response.
Marcus> What name calling?
Saying I create mischief? That my views on laws are
disgusting?
Marcus> To: Joey Hess <joey@kitenet.net>
Marcus> Cc: Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@datasync.com>, debian-policy@lists.debian.org
Marcus> Subject: Re: What RMS says about standards (was: [rms@gnu.org: Re: Questions
Marcus> regarding free
Marcus> +documentation.]
Marcus> From: Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@datasync.com>
Marcus> Date: 16 Aug 1998 11:35:23 -0500
Marcus> X-UIDL: 5d29454dfe69a162ee9ed8c31ca31ec8
Marcus> Please look it up. here is the full text:
>> Hi,
>> >>"Joey" == Joey Hess <joey@kitenet.net> writes:
>>
Joey> Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> >> Because I think that it is in the interests of Debian to
>> >> distribute even verbatim documents as part of the
>> >> distribtution. Remember, we havbe not even covered teh other sets of
>> >> verbatim documents (personal opinions, stories, amgzines, graphic
>> >> novels). It is not clear why we should necesarily throw it all out of
>> >> our distribution.
>>
Joey> I don't know about you, but I like to be able to point to a debian cd and
Joey> say, "You can modify any of the stuff on here to your hearts content, with
Joey> no restricton whatsoever. You can use it however you desire. (Well, er,
Joey> except those nasty copyright documents themselves.)"
>>
>> And I say we should not have the exception even for copyright
>> documents. They should be in the verbatim section, on another CD, but
>> in an required package, and with all indications that they are an
>> integral part of Debian.
>>
>> manoj
Integral part of debian.
Marcus> End of the message. If you mean the whole thread, well, you
Marcus> have repeated it multiple times, in several contexts.
Marcus> This is breaking the copyright law and I disagree strongly.
>>
>> Rubbish. Already, most binary packages point to
>> /usr/doc/copyright/GPL et al; and copyright law says nothing about
>> whether you have to have things on the same CD.
Marcus> Debian does ship source packages and binary packages,
Marcus> too. Everyone can download a binary package, and will not get
Marcus> the copyright. This is a misconception.
So what? No law reqiores that the copyright is bundled in. And
/usr/doc/package/copyright should trell them where they can
get it from.
Marcus> Most copyright licenses (all I know of) are *not*
Marcus> modificable. Manoj things that this is not in accordance with
Marcus> the general freeness of the Debian main distribution, and
Marcus> therefore wants to have the licenses removed from the main
Marcus> distribution. This ignores the core difference between
Marcus> copyright documents and other works, as licenses *apply* to
Marcus> other works and are the only thing that grants us
Marcus> redistribution. Not shipping the license means not shipping
Marcus> at all.
>> Standards apply to other works too.
Marcus> Standards have nothing to do with this serious issue.
>> Anyway, the consensus, minus Marcus, seems to be drifting to
>> having a verbatim section. Marcus has lost it; dragging people in
>> debian-devel as his aguments seem to be loosing in debian-policy, and
>> accusing people of "mischief".
Marcus> The "verbatim" section was not about the copyrights of the
Marcus> software we ship, but was about other immutable
Marcus> documents. You choose to extend the discussion to copyrights
Marcus> as well, and so far I have not heard any voice supporting you
Marcus> in this opinion.
And I have heard none supporting you either.
>> I shall leave the debian-devel list alone, and uninvolved in
>> this debate after this message. Read the archives of debian-policy if
>> you are interested in this issue.
Marcus> This is a very serious issue. A copyright is not the funny
Marcus> little text you ignore anyway. It is the only thing that
Marcus> grants our rights.
You keep repeating that non-sequitor. Do you really understand
what we are talking about? Yes, the copyright is what gives us teh
right to distribute. It, however, does not need be bundled in with
every piece of software that is covered by it.
Alrteady we guarantee that /usr/doc/sopyright/* exist on every
Debian system. That goes above and beyond the call of law.
manoj
--
Q: How many Californians does it take to screw in a lightbulb? A:
Five. One to screw in the lightbulb and four to share the
experience. (Actually, Californians don't screw in lightbulbs, they
screw in hot tubs.) Q: How many Oregonians does it take to screw in
a light bulb? A: Three. One to screw in the lightbulb and two to
fend off all those Californians trying to share the experience.
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@acm.org> <http://www.datasync.com/%7Esrivasta/>
Key C7261095 fingerprint = CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
Reply to: