[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: license requirements for a book to be in free section

Sven <luther@dpt-info.u-strasbg.fr> writes:

> And sometimes you get totally ignored, yes, i know, ...

Um, you didn't get totally ignored.  Your complaint was that you
didn't get an instant unequivocal answer.

> I have followed this as best i could, but without letting my other debian
> tasks aside, and well, there is real life, not everyone can afford to have a
> debian related pay job like some, ...

Um, I don't think any of us have that.  Anyway, the thing to do is to
have a tad of patience.

> Well, the only problem we have trully on this point, is that
> someonbe can take the stuff out of the debian distribution, and make
> a book of it, adding a one liner to it.

> If this happen, then surely oreilly will take them to court, if they
> feel like it, and it is out of our hands.

If this is a possibility, it is one we cannot tolerate, and so we must
be sure that O'Reilly will not do so.  If there is any chance they
will do so, then the package simply cannot be part of Debian.

> And anyway, adding a one liner and publishing it, is not true to the meaning
> of the first article to the DFSG, it is a play with words, an evasion,
> whatever, i guess you understand me.

I think the attempted O'Reilly license is the evasion, the attempt to
pretend to be a fan of free software while actually undermining it.
It's a game that O'Reilly is *very* adept at playing.

> Well, why not simply drop this clause, if it can be circumvented easily by
> adding a one liner, one wonders why it went into the DFSG in the first place,
> and what we would have to remove from debian if we would remove this clause.

Meta-discussion, best entertained on the proper lists.  :)  Not here,
right now.

> Not what is the problem with this ? It adds to the value of debian, adds to
> the freedom of the users, who may wich to ship only part of it, collect it
> with other valuable info and so on.

It's not free.  That's the problem.

> But the non printable clause, to whom does it add freedom, only to those who
> wqnt to print the book and sell it, i guess it doesn't even block people from
> printing it for themselves, or joining money to have a set of them printed,
> where each copy will get to the personal use of the people printing them, and
> not sold.

Yes, those people lose.  Those people may well be *you*.  Or others.
Debian is for *everyone* and not only non-commercial uses.

By your argument, we should just add realplayer to Debian!

> The only people who will have a problem with this, would be those guys who
> look at the debian stuff, and say, look at this nice book, let's get it print
> it withtout change, and sell it to make profit. This kind of behavior adds
> nothing to the debian community nor to the society in general, it only makes
> some people richer and that is it. 

Indeed.  So why is O'Reilly doing it?

Reply to: