on Fri, Jul 01, 2005 at 04:34:54PM -0400, Glenn Maynard (email@example.com) wrote: > Dropped leader@. Fair enough for now. > What the hell were you thinking? That after three years of trying to get appropriate credit I might as well take this to the top. > Throwing a tantrum and screaming at every email address you can find > doesn't make your argument more valid (on the contrary, it suggests > that you don't have much of an argument at all). And saying that suggests you haven't looked over the evidence I've presented, including extensive quotations of my documents in the DIG. If this was your work, and your goal was "portions of section C4 originally written and copyrighted by Karsten M. Self", this contribution was acknowledged by package maintainers / authors, and you'd been trying to get said credit for three years, you might have a similar level of frustration. The Debian Project is doing the wrong thing. Nothing you've said changes that. > On Fri, Jul 01, 2005 at 12:36:14PM -0700, Karsten M. Self wrote: > > Joey Hess is now proposing a rewrite to excise any citation of my > > materials which is unacceptable as: > > > > - The woody DIG already cites my work and is now obsolete stable. > > A past error does not prohibit the maintainer from excising any part > of the work, at his discretion. You don't get to say "you made a > mistake in the past, so you're not allowed to remove my work now". This is an area I'd prefer not to go into, but you're mistaken. > > - I would prefer attribution to excision. > > Being DFSG-free is a prerequisite for being in Debian, but being DFSG- > free does not compel Debian to include a work. Your preferences don't > make excision of a work unacceptable. Debian are already including the work, in violation of its stated licensing terms. > > - Denying contributors proper credit reflects poorly on the Debian > > Project and discourages future contributions to Debian documentation > > by third parties, a contribution by which the Project would benefit > > greatly. > > If your work is excised, then there is no contribution which is being > denied attribution. There is the existing Woody documentation. > It's saying "please offer contributions under the same license as the > rest of the work", which is a legitimate, useful, and common thing to > require. I wrote a work which was appropriated, without my knowledge, without my authorization, and absent any request on my part, in conflict with the licensing terms I'd specified. I wrote a work which is free to be used, quoted, copied, modified, and distributed. With attribution and a short copyright notice. If you have any specific DFSG issues with: © 2002-2004 Karsten M. Self (firstname.lastname@example.org) This document may be freely distributed, copied, or modified, with attribution, this notice, and the following disclaimer: THIS DOCUMENT IS PROVIDED "AS IS" WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHOR OR CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES. The disclaimer itself is a largely a subset of the BSD disclaimer, noted: THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE REGENTS AND CONTRIBUTORS ``AS IS'' AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE REGENTS OR CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE. As I've indicated: if it's licensing that's a hang-up, I'm more than happy to license the work under an established DFSG license. Given that the existing work is under GPL, this would be suitable. My own terms are intended as broader than, but compatible with, the GPL. > The reasons you have cited are reasons why *you* don't want your work > excised, not reasons why it is unacceptable for Debian to do so. I > don't know how you can confuse the two. I'm saying that excising the work would be unacceptable in light of past copyright violations. > The fact that you're trying to coerce a maintainer to include a work No, the work has already been included. It was included without coercion. What I'm requesting is credit for work included. > instead of attempting to address his reasons for doing so, is enough > for me to agree with Joey's decision. I believe you misunderstand the situation. Peace. -- Karsten M. Self <email@example.com> http://kmself.home.netcom.com/ What Part of "Gestalt" don't you understand? Bush: All we have to sell is fear itself.
Description: Digital signature