From bounce-debian-user=nelson=bignachos.com@lists.debian.org Wed Apr 13 22:30:15 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: nelson@bignachos.com Delivered-To: nelson@bignachos.com Received: from murphy.debian.org (murphy.debian.org [146.82.138.6]) by sirius.bignachos.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7C1C653141 for ; Wed, 13 Apr 2005 22:30:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by murphy.debian.org (Postfix) with QMQP id 414AA2EE1F; Thu, 14 Apr 2005 00:30:14 -0500 (CDT) Old-Return-Path: X-Original-To: debian-user@lists.debian.org Received: from smtp7.wiscmail.wisc.edu (hagen.doit.wisc.edu [144.92.197.163]) by murphy.debian.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0F87F2DFDB for ; Thu, 14 Apr 2005 00:13:21 -0500 (CDT) Received: from avs-daemon.smtp7.wiscmail.wisc.edu by smtp7.wiscmail.wisc.edu (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.04 (built Feb 8 2005)) id <0IEX00D047U0BN@smtp7.wiscmail.wisc.edu> for debian-user@lists.debian.org; Thu, 14 Apr 2005 00:13:12 -0500 (CDT) Received: from [192.168.111.2] (c24.180.189.100.mad.wi.charter.com [24.180.189.100]) by smtp7.wiscmail.wisc.edu (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.04 (built Feb 8 2005)) with ESMTPSA id <0IEX007FR7TZA5@smtp7.wiscmail.wisc.edu> for debian-user@lists.debian.org; Thu, 14 Apr 2005 00:13:11 -0500 (CDT) Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2005 00:13:20 -0500 From: Colin Ingram Subject: Re: POLL: Should Debian remove all GNU FDL-licensed documentation? In-reply-to: <20050414034938.GC7651@bignachos.com> To: debian-user@lists.debian.org Message-id: <425DFBF0.4020505@wisc.edu> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-Accept-Language: en-us, en User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0 (Windows/20041206) References: <20050414034938.GC7651@bignachos.com> X-Rc-Spam: 2005-03-31_01 X-Rc-Virus: 2005-02-17_01 X-Rc-Spam: 2005-03-31_01 Resent-Message-ID: <8F-_fB.A.SU.m_fXCB@murphy> Resent-From: debian-user@lists.debian.org X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/389525 X-Loop: debian-user@lists.debian.org List-Id: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: List-Archive: Precedence: list Resent-Sender: debian-user-request@lists.debian.org Resent-Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2005 00:30:14 -0500 (CDT) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.2 (2004-11-16) on sirius.bignachos.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.0.2 Status: RO Content-Length: 1197 Brian Nelson wrote: >And now for the questions: > >1. Is it acceptable for Debian to permanently remove most FDL documents >so that they are no longer available on Debian mirrors or on Debian CDs? > > > No >2. Is it acceptable if all FDL documents were moved to non-free so that >they could still be downloaded from Debian mirrors? Note that they >still would not appear on most Debian CDs. > > Yes >3. Should Debian allow documents without invariant sections in main, and >only remove/move-to-non-free those with invariant sections? > > > Yes >4. Should Debian modify the Social Contract and/or Debian Free Software >Guidelines[1] to allow all FDL documents to remain in the main archive >and appear on Debian CDs? > > Uhhhh I dunno > [1] http://www.debian.org/social_contract > >5. Is Debian making a big out of a minor issue? Should Debian be >focusing more on creating a usable operating system and less on worrying >about licensing issues? > > > Yes! >Please restrict your answers to "Yes", "No", or "Uhhhh I dunno". > > > -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org From ilicz@seznam.cz Wed Apr 13 23:44:38 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: nelson@bignachos.com Delivered-To: nelson@bignachos.com Received: from master.debian.org (master.debian.org [146.82.138.7]) by sirius.bignachos.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E76F853153 for ; Wed, 13 Apr 2005 23:44:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp-out3.iol.cz [194.228.2.91] by master.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 1 (Debian)) id 1DLy5d-00077l-00; Thu, 14 Apr 2005 01:44:38 -0500 Received: from antivir3.iol.cz (unknown [192.168.30.206]) by smtp-out3.iol.cz (Internet on Line ESMTP server) with ESMTP id F19E4318243 for ; Thu, 14 Apr 2005 08:44:37 +0200 (CEST) Received: from localhost (antivir3.iol.cz [127.0.0.1]) by antivir3.iol.cz (Postfix) with ESMTP id C62D26DC00C for ; Thu, 14 Apr 2005 08:44:37 +0200 (CEST) Received: from smtp-out3.iol.cz (unknown [192.168.30.28]) by antivir3.iol.cz (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7D77B6DC015 for ; Thu, 14 Apr 2005 08:44:35 +0200 (CEST) Received: from seznam.cz (212.183.broadband2.iol.cz [83.208.183.212]) by smtp-out3.iol.cz (Internet on Line ESMTP server) with ESMTP id 1BA563C114 for ; Thu, 14 Apr 2005 08:44:34 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <425E1151.7010309@seznam.cz> Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2005 08:44:33 +0200 From: David 'Ilicz' Klementa User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; cs-CZ; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040114 X-Accept-Language: cs, en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Brian Nelson Subject: Re: POLL: Should Debian remove all GNU FDL-licensed documentation? References: <3T3Gt-6FG-17@gated-at.bofh.it> In-Reply-To: <3T3Gt-6FG-17@gated-at.bofh.it> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at iol.cz X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.2 (2004-11-16) on sirius.bignachos.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_00,DNS_FROM_RFC_POST autolearn=no version=3.0.2 Status: RO Content-Length: 1034 > And now for the questions: > > 1. Is it acceptable for Debian to permanently remove most FDL documents > so that they are no longer available on Debian mirrors or on Debian CDs? No > > 2. Is it acceptable if all FDL documents were moved to non-free so that > they could still be downloaded from Debian mirrors? Note that they > still would not appear on most Debian CDs. Yes > > 3. Should Debian allow documents without invariant sections in main, and > only remove/move-to-non-free those with invariant sections? Yes > > 4. Should Debian modify the Social Contract and/or Debian Free Software > Guidelines[1] to allow all FDL documents to remain in the main archive > and appear on Debian CDs? Uhhhh I dunno > > [1] http://www.debian.org/social_contract > > 5. Is Debian making a big out of a minor issue? Should Debian be > focusing more on creating a usable operating system and less on worrying > about licensing issues? Yes > > > Please restrict your answers to "Yes", "No", or "Uhhhh I dunno". > Bye ilicz ;o) From alan@chandlerfamily.org.uk Wed Apr 13 23:44:57 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: nelson@bignachos.com Delivered-To: nelson@bignachos.com Received: from master.debian.org (master.debian.org [146.82.138.7]) by sirius.bignachos.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E0D553153 for ; Wed, 13 Apr 2005 23:44:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 82-44-22-127.cable.ubr06.croy.blueyonder.co.uk (home.chandlerfamily.org.uk) [82.44.22.127] by master.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 1 (Debian)) id 1DLy5x-0007F0-00; Thu, 14 Apr 2005 01:44:57 -0500 Received: from kanger.home ([192.168.0.21]) by home.chandlerfamily.org.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1DLy5w-0003aQ-JY for pyro@debian.org; Thu, 14 Apr 2005 07:44:56 +0100 From: Alan Chandler To: Brian Nelson Subject: Re: POLL: Should Debian remove all GNU FDL-licensed documentation? Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2005 07:45:04 +0100 User-Agent: KMail/1.8 References: <20050414034938.GC7651@bignachos.com> In-Reply-To: <20050414034938.GC7651@bignachos.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200504140745.04818.alan@chandlerfamily.org.uk> X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.2 (2004-11-16) on sirius.bignachos.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.0.2 Status: RO Content-Length: 1205 On Thursday 14 April 2005 04:49, you wrote: ... > And now for the questions: > > 1. Is it acceptable for Debian to permanently remove most FDL documents > so that they are no longer available on Debian mirrors or on Debian CDs? No > > 2. Is it acceptable if all FDL documents were moved to non-free so that > they could still be downloaded from Debian mirrors? Note that they > still would not appear on most Debian CDs. Yes > > 3. Should Debian allow documents without invariant sections in main, and > only remove/move-to-non-free those with invariant sections? No > > 4. Should Debian modify the Social Contract and/or Debian Free Software > Guidelines[1] to allow all FDL documents to remain in the main archive > and appear on Debian CDs? > > [1] http://www.debian.org/social_contract No > > 5. Is Debian making a big out of a minor issue? Should Debian be > focusing more on creating a usable operating system and less on worrying > about licensing issues? No > > > Please restrict your answers to "Yes", "No", or "Uhhhh I dunno". > > -- > Society is never going to make any progress until we all learn to > pretend to like each other. -- Alan Chandler http://www.chandlerfamily.org.uk From liqin@act.buaa.edu.cn Thu Apr 14 00:04:24 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: nelson@bignachos.com Delivered-To: nelson@bignachos.com Received: from master.debian.org (master.debian.org [146.82.138.7]) by sirius.bignachos.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED58853141 for ; Thu, 14 Apr 2005 00:04:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from (act.buaa.edu.cn) [210.76.115.58] by master.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 1 (Debian)) id 1DLyOk-0007Cq-00; Thu, 14 Apr 2005 02:04:23 -0500 Received: from [127.0.0.1] [192.168.3.41] by act.buaa.edu.cn with ESMTP (SMTPD32-8.02) id A57EED00D4; Thu, 14 Apr 2005 15:02:22 +0800 Message-ID: <425E1639.4070203@act.buaa.edu.cn> Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2005 15:05:29 +0800 From: Lynch User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0 (Windows/20041206) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Brian Nelson Subject: Re: POLL: Should Debian remove all GNU FDL-licensed documentation? References: <20050414034938.GC7651@bignachos.com> In-Reply-To: <20050414034938.GC7651@bignachos.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.91.0.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.2 (2004-11-16) on sirius.bignachos.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.3 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_00,DNS_FROM_RFC_WHOIS autolearn=no version=3.0.2 Status: RO Content-Length: 1285 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hi Brian, Brian Nelson wrote: > > And now for the questions: > > 1. Is it acceptable for Debian to permanently remove most FDL documents > so that they are no longer available on Debian mirrors or on Debian CDs? no > > 2. Is it acceptable if all FDL documents were moved to non-free so that > they could still be downloaded from Debian mirrors? Note that they > still would not appear on most Debian CDs. no > > 3. Should Debian allow documents without invariant sections in main, and > only remove/move-to-non-free those with invariant sections? Uhhhh I dunno > > 4. Should Debian modify the Social Contract and/or Debian Free Software > Guidelines[1] to allow all FDL documents to remain in the main archive > and appear on Debian CDs? > > [1] http://www.debian.org/social_contract yes > > 5. Is Debian making a big out of a minor issue? Should Debian be > focusing more on creating a usable operating system and less on worrying > about licensing issues? yes > > > Please restrict your answers to "Yes", "No", or "Uhhhh I dunno". > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (MingW32) iD8DBQFCXhY5dTkA6OS5PegRAmFVAJ9cRRqYd+uC/CZIbCmk8tAmVvaRAACghRZ4 m4e5U6onOoBEbdRSehpObMk= =fYCQ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From ramercer@gmail.com Thu Apr 14 00:11:41 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: nelson@bignachos.com Delivered-To: nelson@bignachos.com Received: from master.debian.org (master.debian.org [146.82.138.7]) by sirius.bignachos.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC8AB53155 for ; Thu, 14 Apr 2005 00:11:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from wproxy.gmail.com [64.233.184.207] by master.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 1 (Debian)) id 1DLyVp-0002Fd-00; Thu, 14 Apr 2005 02:11:41 -0500 Received: by wproxy.gmail.com with SMTP id 67so882764wri for ; Thu, 14 Apr 2005 00:11:37 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:reply-to:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=cbVBVqcmCWnqgTgU00b0h+R/v8W6PHv51R3ZCO9ITs/uo1SNXMgfM4886E2kxGWQX86VQ7EYbqc7hDcMeia99A1ip1hIii9Y9HPfEj1lEcyLXoDJp1OCCQJCiljzMOsreTvz3HSbE99nqBUronrpEqyZdTt9TNN8UhZXn65VN6U= Received: by 10.54.6.65 with SMTP id 65mr614815wrf; Thu, 14 Apr 2005 00:11:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.54.45.65 with HTTP; Thu, 14 Apr 2005 00:11:36 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <799406d6050414001149ea8e25@mail.gmail.com> Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2005 08:11:36 +0100 From: Adam Mercer Reply-To: Adam Mercer To: pyro@debian.org Subject: Re: POLL: Should Debian remove all GNU FDL-licensed documentation? In-Reply-To: <20050414034938.GC7651@bignachos.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline References: <20050414034938.GC7651@bignachos.com> X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.2 (2004-11-16) on sirius.bignachos.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_BY_IP autolearn=ham version=3.0.2 Status: RO X-Status: A Content-Length: 1093 On 4/14/05, Brian Nelson wrote: > 1. Is it acceptable for Debian to permanently remove most FDL documents > so that they are no longer available on Debian mirrors or on Debian CDs? No > 2. Is it acceptable if all FDL documents were moved to non-free so that > they could still be downloaded from Debian mirrors? Note that they > still would not appear on most Debian CDs. Yes > 3. Should Debian allow documents without invariant sections in main, and > only remove/move-to-non-free those with invariant sections? Uhhhh I dunno, sounds like a lot of work - more than moving the documentation to non-free > 4. Should Debian modify the Social Contract and/or Debian Free Software > Guidelines[1] to allow all FDL documents to remain in the main archive > and appear on Debian CDs? >=20 > [1] http://www.debian.org/social_contract Uhhhh I dunno > 5. Is Debian making a big out of a minor issue? Should Debian be > focusing more on creating a usable operating system and less on worrying > about licensing issues? No, any licensing issue is important Cheers Adam From sanskryt@isoc.org.pl Thu Apr 14 00:17:15 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: nelson@bignachos.com Delivered-To: nelson@bignachos.com Received: from master.debian.org (master.debian.org [146.82.138.7]) by sirius.bignachos.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC59053155 for ; Thu, 14 Apr 2005 00:17:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from uott.uw.edu.pl (www.ceenet.org) [212.87.7.181] by master.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 1 (Debian)) id 1DLybC-0004gF-00; Thu, 14 Apr 2005 02:17:14 -0500 Received: from [192.168.1.100] (zp46.internetdsl.tpnet.pl [80.53.147.46]) (authenticated bits=0) by www.ceenet.org (8.12.3+3.5Wbeta/8.12.3/Debian-7.1) with ESMTP id j3E78f7K027943; Thu, 14 Apr 2005 09:08:42 +0200 From: "Zdzislaw A. Kaleta" Reply-To: sanskryt@isoc.org.pl Organization: ISOC Polska To: Brian Nelson Subject: Re: POLL: Should Debian remove all GNU FDL-licensed documentation? Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2005 09:17:04 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.7.2 References: <20050414034938.GC7651@bignachos.com> In-Reply-To: <20050414034938.GC7651@bignachos.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200504140917.04891.sanskryt@isoc.org.pl> X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.80/644/Sun Dec 26 21:59:43 2004 clamav-milter version 0.80j on www.ceenet.org X-Virus-Status: Clean X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.2 (2004-11-16) on sirius.bignachos.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.0.2 Status: RO Content-Length: 1149 Dnia czwartek, 14 kwietnia 2005 05:49, Brian Nelson napisa=C5=82: > And now for the questions: > > 1. Is it acceptable for Debian to permanently remove most FDL documents > so that they are no longer available on Debian mirrors or on Debian CDs? No > > 2. Is it acceptable if all FDL documents were moved to non-free so that > they could still be downloaded from Debian mirrors? =C2=A0Note that they > still would not appear on most Debian CDs. Yes > > 3. Should Debian allow documents without invariant sections in main, and > only remove/move-to-non-free those with invariant sections? Uhhhh I duno > > 4. Should Debian modify the Social Contract and/or Debian Free Software > Guidelines[1] to allow all FDL documents to remain in the main archive > and appear on Debian CDs? > > =C2=A0 [1] http://www.debian.org/social_contract Yes > > 5. Is Debian making a big out of a minor issue? =C2=A0Should Debian be > focusing more on creating a usable operating system and less on worrying > about licensing issues? Yes > > > Please restrict your answers to "Yes", "No", or "Uhhhh I dunno". =2D-=20 z.a.kaleta (sanskryt), registered Linux User #279350 From bounce-debian-user=nelson=bignachos.com@lists.debian.org Wed Apr 13 20:51:10 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: nelson@bignachos.com Delivered-To: nelson@bignachos.com Received: from murphy.debian.org (murphy.debian.org [146.82.138.6]) by sirius.bignachos.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A2FB653141 for ; Wed, 13 Apr 2005 20:51:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by murphy.debian.org (Postfix) with QMQP id D59F52EE01; Wed, 13 Apr 2005 22:51:08 -0500 (CDT) Old-Return-Path: X-Original-To: debian-user@lists.debian.org Received: from mail23.sea5.speakeasy.net (mail23.sea5.speakeasy.net [69.17.117.25]) by murphy.debian.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C4ED32EB2A for ; Wed, 13 Apr 2005 22:51:02 -0500 (CDT) Received: (qmail 13090 invoked from network); 14 Apr 2005 03:51:01 -0000 Received: from dsl254-022-219.sea1.dsl.speakeasy.net (HELO sirius.bignachos.com) ([216.254.22.219]) (envelope-sender ) by mail23.sea5.speakeasy.net (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for ; 14 Apr 2005 03:51:01 -0000 Received: from scabbers (unknown [192.168.1.10]) by sirius.bignachos.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 543C453141 for ; Wed, 13 Apr 2005 20:51:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: by scabbers (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 74FCB10C0C4; Wed, 13 Apr 2005 20:49:38 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2005 20:49:38 -0700 From: Brian Nelson To: debian-user@lists.debian.org Subject: POLL: Should Debian remove all GNU FDL-licensed documentation? Message-ID: <20050414034938.GC7651@bignachos.com> Mail-Followup-To: debian-user@lists.debian.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i X-Rc-Virus: 2005-02-17_01 X-Rc-Spam: 2005-03-31_01 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: debian-user@lists.debian.org X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/389524 X-Loop: debian-user@lists.debian.org List-Id: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: List-Archive: Precedence: list Resent-Sender: debian-user-request@lists.debian.org Resent-Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2005 22:51:08 -0500 (CDT) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.2 (2004-11-16) on sirius.bignachos.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=4.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.0.2 Status: RO Content-Length: 3127 It seems that after sarge is released, Debian developers are planning to declare the GNU Free Documentation License non-free. This means that all FDL documents currently in main will be either removed from the archive altogether or moved into the non-free archive. Since putting documentation in non-free requires a creation and maintenance of a new and separate source package, I believe most of the documentation will be removed completely. Only the most popular documents, or those with maintainers willing to maintain them will appear in non-free. Affected documents include virtually all documentation released by the FSF, including: * The various Emacs manuals * The GDB manual * The GCC manual * The glibc manual * The GNU make manual and many others... The three major releases for the GFDL being declared non-free are: * Invariant Sections * The "DRM" restriction * Transparent and Opaque copies Invariant sections are "secondary sections" that must not contain anything that could fall directly within the document's overall subject. They cannot be modified or removed from the document. Most FDL documents do not contain invariant sections--I only count 6 on my system, though 5 of them are listed above. The "DRM" restriction refers to the FDL clause that disallows "technical measures to obstruct or control" reading and copying. This is intended to prevent the use of DRM on FDL documents, but can be interpreted to mean that you can't use FDL on encrypted filesystems (though this is not the intent of the writers of the FDL). I honestly don't understand the problem with the "Transparent and Opaque copies", so I won't try to summarize that here. You may find a discussion of it in the position statement link below. You may find the full text of the FDL here: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/fdl.html And a draft Debian position statement here: http://people.debian.org/~srivasta/Position_Statement.xhtml And now for the questions: 1. Is it acceptable for Debian to permanently remove most FDL documents so that they are no longer available on Debian mirrors or on Debian CDs? 2. Is it acceptable if all FDL documents were moved to non-free so that they could still be downloaded from Debian mirrors? Note that they still would not appear on most Debian CDs. 3. Should Debian allow documents without invariant sections in main, and only remove/move-to-non-free those with invariant sections? 4. Should Debian modify the Social Contract and/or Debian Free Software Guidelines[1] to allow all FDL documents to remain in the main archive and appear on Debian CDs? [1] http://www.debian.org/social_contract 5. Is Debian making a big out of a minor issue? Should Debian be focusing more on creating a usable operating system and less on worrying about licensing issues? Please restrict your answers to "Yes", "No", or "Uhhhh I dunno". -- Society is never going to make any progress until we all learn to pretend to like each other. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org From pyro@debian.org Thu Apr 14 00:24:47 2005 Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2005 00:24:47 -0700 From: Brian Nelson To: Adam Mercer Subject: Re: POLL: Should Debian remove all GNU FDL-licensed documentation? Message-ID: <20050414072447.GJ7651@bignachos.com> References: <20050414034938.GC7651@bignachos.com> <799406d6050414001149ea8e25@mail.gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <799406d6050414001149ea8e25@mail.gmail.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i Status: RO Content-Length: 981 On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 08:11:36AM +0100, Adam Mercer wrote: > On 4/14/05, Brian Nelson wrote: > > > 3. Should Debian allow documents without invariant sections in main, and > > only remove/move-to-non-free those with invariant sections? > > Uhhhh I dunno, sounds like a lot of work - more than moving the > documentation to non-free You may have misunderstood this question. Invariant sections cannot be removed from FDL docs; if they could, there would be a lot less fuss about them. So, the whole document with the invariant sections would have to be removed or moved to non-free. Essentially, this means leave all docs without invariant sections in main, and only worry about the ones with invariant sections. It would be less work than moving all of them to non-free, of course, since only a fairly small percentage of them contain invariant sections. -- Society is never going to make any progress until we all learn to pretend to like each other. From bootc@bootc.net Thu Apr 14 03:16:07 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: nelson@bignachos.com Delivered-To: nelson@bignachos.com Received: from master.debian.org (master.debian.org [146.82.138.7]) by sirius.bignachos.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 20B3F5317D for ; Thu, 14 Apr 2005 03:16:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rgminet01.oracle.com [148.87.122.30] by master.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 1 (Debian)) id 1DM1OJ-0001Y3-00; Thu, 14 Apr 2005 05:16:07 -0500 Received: from rgmgw3.us.oracle.com (rgmgw3.us.oracle.com [138.1.191.12]) by rgminet01.oracle.com (Switch-3.1.6/Switch-3.1.6) with ESMTP id j3EAE2AW006335 for ; Thu, 14 Apr 2005 04:14:46 -0600 Received: from rgmgw3.us.oracle.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by rgmgw3.us.oracle.com (Switch-3.1.4/Switch-3.1.0) with ESMTP id j3EAE1LB032113 for ; Thu, 14 Apr 2005 04:14:01 -0600 Received: from [138.3.169.8] (dhcp-tvp530-169-8.uk.oracle.com [138.3.169.8]) by rgmgw3.us.oracle.com (Switch-3.1.4/Switch-3.1.0) with ESMTP id j3EAE1l4032073 for ; Thu, 14 Apr 2005 04:14:01 -0600 Message-ID: <425E4268.9040602@bootc.net> Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2005 11:14:00 +0100 From: Chris Boot User-Agent: Debian Thunderbird 1.0 (X11/20050116) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Brian Nelson Subject: Re: POLL: Should Debian remove all GNU FDL-licensed documentation? References: <20050414034938.GC7651@bignachos.com> In-Reply-To: <20050414034938.GC7651@bignachos.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAQAAAAI= X-Whitelist: TRUE X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.2 (2004-11-16) on sirius.bignachos.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=4.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.0.2 Status: RO Content-Length: 1075 Brian Nelson wrote: >1. Is it acceptable for Debian to permanently remove most FDL documents >so that they are no longer available on Debian mirrors or on Debian CDs? > > No >2. Is it acceptable if all FDL documents were moved to non-free so that >they could still be downloaded from Debian mirrors? Note that they >still would not appear on most Debian CDs. > > No >3. Should Debian allow documents without invariant sections in main, and >only remove/move-to-non-free those with invariant sections? > > No >4. Should Debian modify the Social Contract and/or Debian Free Software >Guidelines[1] to allow all FDL documents to remain in the main archive >and appear on Debian CDs? > > [1] http://www.debian.org/social_contract > > Yes, if that's what it takes >5. Is Debian making a big out of a minor issue? Should Debian be >focusing more on creating a usable operating system and less on worrying >about licensing issues? > > YES Interesting poll, I wonder what will emerge from the results. Chris -- Chris Boot bootc@bootc.net http://www.bootc.net/ From aurelien.campeas@uni.lu Thu Apr 14 04:05:38 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: nelson@bignachos.com Delivered-To: nelson@bignachos.com Received: from master.debian.org (master.debian.org [146.82.138.7]) by sirius.bignachos.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 986595317D for ; Thu, 14 Apr 2005 04:05:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from duchesse.ist.lu [158.64.76.33] by master.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 1 (Debian)) id 1DM2AE-0006oY-00; Thu, 14 Apr 2005 06:05:38 -0500 Received: from [10.91.0.56] (unverified) by duchesse.ist.lu (Content Technologies SMTPRS 4.3.14) with SMTP id for ; Thu, 14 Apr 2005 13:05:37 +0200 Subject: Re: POLL: Should Debian remove all GNU FDL-licensed documentation? From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Aur=E9lien_Camp=E9as?= To: Brian Nelson In-Reply-To: <20050414034938.GC7651@bignachos.com> References: <20050414034938.GC7651@bignachos.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15 Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2005 13:02:03 +0200 Message-Id: <1113476523.3274.44.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.0.4 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.2 (2004-11-16) on sirius.bignachos.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.4 required=4.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 autolearn=unavailable version=3.0.2 Status: RO Content-Length: 2318 Hello Brian, note that I am not a Debian developper myself, I am "just a user" and since 2000 (the advent of Potato in fact) I've using Debian as my personal primary OS and deployed it on a bunch of servers for real bizness usage. I am extremely fond of the system ... Le mercredi 13 avril 2005 =E0 20:49 -0700, Brian Nelson a =E9crit : > And now for the questions: >=20 > 1. Is it acceptable for Debian to permanently remove most FDL documents > so that they are no longer available on Debian mirrors or on Debian CDs? No >=20 > 2. Is it acceptable if all FDL documents were moved to non-free so that > they could still be downloaded from Debian mirrors? Note that they > still would not appear on most Debian CDs. No >=20 > 3. Should Debian allow documents without invariant sections in main, and > only remove/move-to-non-free those with invariant sections? No >=20 > 4. Should Debian modify the Social Contract and/or Debian Free Software > Guidelines[1] to allow all FDL documents to remain in the main archive > and appear on Debian CDs? >=20 > [1] http://www.debian.org/social_contract Yes >=20 > 5. Is Debian making a big out of a minor issue? Should Debian be > focusing more on creating a usable operating system and less on worrying > about licensing issues? Yes >=20 >=20 > Please restrict your answers to "Yes", "No", or "Uhhhh I dunno". >=20 > --=20 > Society is never going to make any progress until we all learn to > pretend to like each other. As someone already said, the fuss about invariant sections is just incredible. Just let us wait until someone really decides to DOS some good documentation with big useless invariant sections. In the meantime, let us remind that software licence, whose text is part of main (I hope) ARE invariant themselves and not specially free software... Good luck ! ********************************************************************** This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. This footnote also confirms that this email message has been checked for th= e presence of computer viruses. ********************************************************************** From demonbane@the-love-shack.net Thu Apr 14 06:53:55 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: nelson@bignachos.com Delivered-To: nelson@bignachos.com Received: from master.debian.org (master.debian.org [146.82.138.7]) by sirius.bignachos.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 512C552ECD for ; Thu, 14 Apr 2005 06:53:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from crown261.dsl.crown.net (Bigbrother.the-love-shack.lan) [12.159.251.11] by master.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 1 (Debian)) id 1DM4n4-0006bb-00; Thu, 14 Apr 2005 08:53:54 -0500 Received: from [65.117.136.61] (helo=[10.0.0.107]) by Bigbrother.the-love-shack.lan with asmtp (TLS-1.0:RSA_ARCFOUR_MD5:16) (Exim 4.24) id 1DM4mx-0001EF-PJ for pyro@debian.org; Thu, 14 Apr 2005 08:53:47 -0500 Subject: Re: POLL: Should Debian remove all GNU FDL-licensed documentation? From: Alex Malinovich To: Brian Nelson In-Reply-To: <20050414034938.GC7651@bignachos.com> References: <20050414034938.GC7651@bignachos.com> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-L17qZQZknqS2RvX4XNgF" Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2005 08:53:43 -0500 Message-Id: <1113486823.27250.6.camel@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.0.4 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.2 (2004-11-16) on sirius.bignachos.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=4.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.0.2 Status: RO Content-Length: 1918 --=-L17qZQZknqS2RvX4XNgF Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, 2005-04-13 at 20:49 -0700, Brian Nelson wrote: --snip-- > 1. Is it acceptable for Debian to permanently remove most FDL documents > so that they are no longer available on Debian mirrors or on Debian CDs? 1. No (They're still valuable sources of information.) > 2. Is it acceptable if all FDL documents were moved to non-free so that > they could still be downloaded from Debian mirrors? Note that they > still would not appear on most Debian CDs. 2. Yes > 3. Should Debian allow documents without invariant sections in main, and > only remove/move-to-non-free those with invariant sections? 3. No. (If a document violates the SC it should be in non-free, period.) > 4. Should Debian modify the Social Contract and/or Debian Free Software > Guidelines[1] to allow all FDL documents to remain in the main archive > and appear on Debian CDs? 4. No > 5. Is Debian making a big out of a minor issue? Should Debian be > focusing more on creating a usable operating system and less on worrying > about licensing issues? 5. No. Debian has always been about free software, with the emphasis on FREE (as in speech). And maybe by us raising a big enough stink about this, the FSF will finally start paying as much attention to the FDL as they do to the GPL. --=20 Alex Malinovich Support Free Software, delete your Windows partition TODAY! Encrypted mail preferred. You can get my public key from any of the pgp.net keyservers. Key ID: A6D24837 --=-L17qZQZknqS2RvX4XNgF Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQBCXnXnBPYwh6bSSDcRAgFvAJ9Le63L0QgRvpjDzH0E5OJFEdNmLACfdtsG bJqYRApc+Q1xNxo/Qkas5Cw= =X22g -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-L17qZQZknqS2RvX4XNgF-- From Gregory_Seidman@xxx Thu Apr 14 07:04:50 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: nelson@bignachos.com Delivered-To: nelson@bignachos.com Received: from master.debian.org (master.debian.org [146.82.138.7]) by sirius.bignachos.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0616A52ECD for ; Thu, 14 Apr 2005 07:04:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from salt.cs.brown.edu [128.148.32.122] by master.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 1 (Debian)) id 1DM4xe-0001lN-00; Thu, 14 Apr 2005 09:04:50 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by salt.cs.brown.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id C10B13863F0 for ; Thu, 14 Apr 2005 10:04:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: from salt.cs.brown.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (salt [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 19168-04 for ; Thu, 14 Apr 2005 10:04:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: from null.cs.brown.edu (imap1.cs.brown.edu [128.148.38.151]) by salt.cs.brown.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id A7FA93863C9 for ; Thu, 14 Apr 2005 10:04:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: from peabody.cs.brown.edu (peabody [128.148.31.111]) by null.cs.brown.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 65AA214800F for ; Thu, 14 Apr 2005 10:04:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: by peabody.cs.brown.edu (Postfix, from userid 3087) id 4259F408C; Thu, 14 Apr 2005 10:04:49 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2005 10:04:49 -0400 From: Gregory Seidman To: Brian Nelson Subject: Re: POLL: Should Debian remove all GNU FDL-licensed documentation? Message-ID: <20050414140449.GB17957@cs.brown.edu> References: <20050414034938.GC7651@bignachos.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20050414034938.GC7651@bignachos.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6+20040907i X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new-20030616-p10 (Debian) at cs.brown.edu X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.2 (2004-11-16) on sirius.bignachos.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.0.2 Status: RO Content-Length: 1349 On Wed, Apr 13, 2005 at 08:49:38PM -0700, Brian Nelson wrote: [...] } And now for the questions: } } 1. Is it acceptable for Debian to permanently remove most FDL documents } so that they are no longer available on Debian mirrors or on Debian CDs? No. } 2. Is it acceptable if all FDL documents were moved to non-free so that } they could still be downloaded from Debian mirrors? Note that they } still would not appear on most Debian CDs. Yes. } 3. Should Debian allow documents without invariant sections in main, and } only remove/move-to-non-free those with invariant sections? Uhhhh I dunno } 4. Should Debian modify the Social Contract and/or Debian Free Software } Guidelines[1] to allow all FDL documents to remain in the main archive } and appear on Debian CDs? } } [1] http://www.debian.org/social_contract No. } 5. Is Debian making a big out of a minor issue? Should Debian be } focusing more on creating a usable operating system and less on worrying } about licensing issues? No. Debian's principles are important. Nonetheless, it's a shame to lose that documentation. Is the FSF really unwillnig to provide their documentation under a license acceptable to the Debian social contract, or has no one really tried to get them to? } Please restrict your answers to "Yes", "No", or "Uhhhh I dunno". Well, mostly. --Greg From kk288@cornell.edu Thu Apr 14 07:20:14 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: nelson@bignachos.com Delivered-To: nelson@bignachos.com Received: from master.debian.org (master.debian.org [146.82.138.7]) by sirius.bignachos.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E4B3F52EDE for ; Thu, 14 Apr 2005 07:20:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from postoffice7.mail.cornell.edu [132.236.56.22] by master.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 1 (Debian)) id 1DM5CY-0006F3-00; Thu, 14 Apr 2005 09:20:14 -0500 Received: from [128.84.17.68] (rrdhcp16-324.redrover.cornell.edu [128.84.17.68]) by postoffice7.mail.cornell.edu (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id j3EEKC3o017435 for ; Thu, 14 Apr 2005 10:20:12 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <425E7C7B.3010707@cornell.edu> Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2005 10:21:47 -0400 From: Kamaraju Kusumanchi User-Agent: Debian Thunderbird 1.0.2 (X11/20050331) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: pyro@debian.org Subject: Re: POLL: Should Debian remove all GNU FDL-licensed documentation? References: <20050414034938.GC7651@bignachos.com> In-Reply-To: <20050414034938.GC7651@bignachos.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.2 (2004-11-16) on sirius.bignachos.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=4.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.0.2 Status: RO Content-Length: 1027 > > 1. Is it acceptable for Debian to permanently remove most FDL documents > so that they are no longer available on Debian mirrors or on Debian CDs? > no > 2. Is it acceptable if all FDL documents were moved to non-free so that > they could still be downloaded from Debian mirrors? Note that they > still would not appear on most Debian CDs. > Uhhhh I dunno > 3. Should Debian allow documents without invariant sections in main, and > only remove/move-to-non-free those with invariant sections? > Uhhhh I dunno > 4. Should Debian modify the Social Contract and/or Debian Free Software > Guidelines[1] to allow all FDL documents to remain in the main archive > and appear on Debian CDs? > > [1] http://www.debian.org/social_contract Uhhhh I dunno > 5. Is Debian making a big out of a minor issue? Should Debian be > focusing more on creating a usable operating system and less on worrying > about licensing issues? > yes yes yes. > > Please restrict your answers to "Yes", "No", or "Uhhhh I dunno". > raju From mshapiro_42@yahoo.com Thu Apr 14 08:15:28 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: nelson@bignachos.com Delivered-To: nelson@bignachos.com Received: from master.debian.org (master.debian.org [146.82.138.7]) by sirius.bignachos.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6CEB052FD9 for ; Thu, 14 Apr 2005 08:15:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp104.mail.sc5.yahoo.com [66.163.169.223] by master.debian.org with smtp (Exim 3.35 1 (Debian)) id 1DM63z-00021H-00; Thu, 14 Apr 2005 10:15:27 -0500 Received: from unknown (HELO ?192.168.0.3?) (mshapiro?42@12.28.170.139 with plain) by smtp104.mail.sc5.yahoo.com with SMTP; 14 Apr 2005 15:15:26 -0000 Message-ID: <425E890B.5090603@yahoo.com> Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2005 11:15:23 -0400 From: Marc Shapiro Organization: Power to Linux! User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.7.6) Gecko/20050324 Debian/1.7.6-1 X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Brian Nelson Subject: Re: POLL: Should Debian remove all GNU FDL-licensed documentation? References: <20050414065225.775482EE69@murphy.debian.org> In-Reply-To: <20050414065225.775482EE69@murphy.debian.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.2 (2004-11-16) on sirius.bignachos.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=4.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00, RCVD_IN_SORBS_WEB autolearn=ham version=3.0.2 Status: RO Content-Length: 901 > > 1. Is it acceptable for Debian to permanently remove most FDL documents > so that they are no longer available on Debian mirrors or on Debian CDs? No > 2. Is it acceptable if all FDL documents were moved to non-free so that > they could still be downloaded from Debian mirrors? Note that they > still would not appear on most Debian CDs. Yes > 3. Should Debian allow documents without invariant sections in main, and > only remove/move-to-non-free those with invariant sections? Yes > 4. Should Debian modify the Social Contract and/or Debian Free Software > Guidelines[1] to allow all FDL documents to remain in the main archive > and appear on Debian CDs? Uhhhh I dunno > 5. Is Debian making a big out of a minor issue? Should Debian be > focusing more on creating a usable operating system and less on worrying > about licensing issues? Yes -- Marc Shapiro mshapiro_42@yahoo.com From bounce-debian-user=nelson=bignachos.com@lists.debian.org Thu Apr 14 03:48:22 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: nelson@bignachos.com Delivered-To: nelson@bignachos.com Received: from murphy.debian.org (murphy.debian.org [146.82.138.6]) by sirius.bignachos.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B8AF253156 for ; Thu, 14 Apr 2005 03:48:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by murphy.debian.org (Postfix) with QMQP id 73D3C2EE21; Thu, 14 Apr 2005 05:48:21 -0500 (CDT) Old-Return-Path: X-Original-To: debian-user@lists.debian.org Received: from ciao.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.229.2]) by murphy.debian.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3DF702E9F5 for ; Thu, 14 Apr 2005 05:32:53 -0500 (CDT) Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1DM1aR-0007yK-SJ for debian-user@lists.debian.org; Thu, 14 Apr 2005 12:28:39 +0200 Received: from logic-pc1.ulb.ac.be ([164.15.131.36]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Thu, 14 Apr 2005 12:28:39 +0200 Received: from olive.lin by logic-pc1.ulb.ac.be with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Thu, 14 Apr 2005 12:28:39 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: debian-user@lists.debian.org From: Olive Subject: Re: POLL: Should Debian remove all GNU FDL-licensed documentation? Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2005 12:30:51 +0200 Message-ID: References: <20050414034938.GC7651@bignachos.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: logic-pc1.ulb.ac.be User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.7) Gecko/20040618 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en In-Reply-To: <20050414034938.GC7651@bignachos.com> Sender: news X-Rc-Spam: 2005-03-31_01 X-Rc-Virus: 2005-02-17_01 X-Rc-Spam: 2005-03-31_01 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: debian-user@lists.debian.org X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/389561 X-Loop: debian-user@lists.debian.org List-Id: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: List-Archive: Precedence: list Resent-Sender: debian-user-request@lists.debian.org Resent-Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2005 05:48:21 -0500 (CDT) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.2 (2004-11-16) on sirius.bignachos.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.0.2 Status: RO Content-Length: 4041 Lines: 100 Brian Nelson wrote: > It seems that after sarge is released, Debian developers are planning to > declare the GNU Free Documentation License non-free. This means that > all FDL documents currently in main will be either removed from the > archive altogether or moved into the non-free archive. Since putting > documentation in non-free requires a creation and maintenance of a new > and separate source package, I believe most of the documentation will be > removed completely. Only the most popular documents, or those with > maintainers willing to maintain them will appear in non-free. > > Affected documents include virtually all documentation released by the > FSF, including: > > * The various Emacs manuals > * The GDB manual > * The GCC manual > * The glibc manual > * The GNU make manual > and many others... > > The three major releases for the GFDL being declared non-free are: > > * Invariant Sections > * The "DRM" restriction > * Transparent and Opaque copies > > Invariant sections are "secondary sections" that must not contain > anything that could fall directly within the document's overall subject. > They cannot be modified or removed from the document. Most FDL > documents do not contain invariant sections--I only count 6 on my > system, though 5 of them are listed above. > > The "DRM" restriction refers to the FDL clause that disallows "technical > measures to obstruct or control" reading and copying. This is intended > to prevent the use of DRM on FDL documents, but can be interpreted to > mean that you can't use FDL on encrypted filesystems (though this is not > the intent of the writers of the FDL). > > I honestly don't understand the problem with the "Transparent and Opaque > copies", so I won't try to summarize that here. You may find a > discussion of it in the position statement link below. > > You may find the full text of the FDL here: > > http://www.gnu.org/licenses/fdl.html > > And a draft Debian position statement here: > > http://people.debian.org/~srivasta/Position_Statement.xhtml > > > And now for the questions: > > 1. Is it acceptable for Debian to permanently remove most FDL documents > so that they are no longer available on Debian mirrors or on Debian CDs? No. Many of these manuals are essentials to use Debian. It is not really possible, for instance, to use the full power of the emacs editor without the manual. > > 2. Is it acceptable if all FDL documents were moved to non-free so that > they could still be downloaded from Debian mirrors? Note that they > still would not appear on most Debian CDs. I think these documents should stay in main. > > 3. Should Debian allow documents without invariant sections in main, and > only remove/move-to-non-free those with invariant sections? I don't understand why these invariant sections are a big problem since a section describing technical aspect on software can be modified. The preamble of the GPL is totally similar to an invariant section: it says nothing (or few) about the licence itself but mailnly express political opinions and is not modifiable nor removable. The advertising close of the old BSD license is also a kind of invariant section and is considered free by rule 10 of the Social Contract. For the DRM, from the spirit of the license, one can consider that it applies only to copies you distribute and not for our own private copy. > > 4. Should Debian modify the Social Contract and/or Debian Free Software > Guidelines[1] to allow all FDL documents to remain in the main archive > and appear on Debian CDs? > > [1] http://www.debian.org/social_contract > > 5. Is Debian making a big out of a minor issue? Should Debian be > focusing more on creating a usable operating system and less on worrying > about licensing issues? > Yes! > > Please restrict your answers to "Yes", "No", or "Uhhhh I dunno". > -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org From pyro@debian.org Thu Apr 14 09:08:30 2005 Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2005 09:08:30 -0700 From: Brian Nelson To: Olive Subject: Re: POLL: Should Debian remove all GNU FDL-licensed documentation? Message-ID: <20050414160830.GB15397@bignachos.com> References: <20050414034938.GC7651@bignachos.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i Status: RO Content-Length: 689 On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 12:30:51PM +0200, Olive wrote: > Brian Nelson wrote: > >4. Should Debian modify the Social Contract and/or Debian Free Software > >Guidelines[1] to allow all FDL documents to remain in the main archive > >and appear on Debian CDs? > > > > [1] http://www.debian.org/social_contract Do you have an answer for this one? Did you intend for the below yes to apply to both 4 and 5? > >5. Is Debian making a big out of a minor issue? Should Debian be > >focusing more on creating a usable operating system and less on worrying > >about licensing issues? > > > > Yes! -- Society is never going to make any progress until we all learn to pretend to like each other. From pyro@debian.org Thu Apr 14 09:04:32 2005 Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2005 09:04:32 -0700 From: Brian Nelson To: debian-user@lists.debian.org Subject: Re: POLL: Should Debian remove all GNU FDL-licensed documentation? Message-ID: <20050414160432.GA15397@bignachos.com> Mail-Followup-To: debian-user@lists.debian.org References: <20050414034938.GC7651@bignachos.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20050414034938.GC7651@bignachos.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i Status: RO Content-Length: 290 On Wed, Apr 13, 2005 at 08:49:38PM -0700, Brian Nelson wrote: > 5. Is Debian making a big out of a minor issue? Should Debian be ^ deal/fuss/hoopla/spat ... -- Society is never going to make any progress until we all learn to pretend to like each other. From hmh@debian.org Thu Apr 14 09:59:44 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: nelson@bignachos.com Delivered-To: nelson@bignachos.com Received: from master.debian.org (master.debian.org [146.82.138.7]) by sirius.bignachos.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1A00D52EDE for ; Thu, 14 Apr 2005 09:59:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from khazad-dum.debian.net [200.218.238.29] by master.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 1 (Debian)) id 1DM7gs-000311-00; Thu, 14 Apr 2005 11:59:43 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.khazad-dum.debian.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 795EC208BC6 for ; Thu, 14 Apr 2005 13:59:38 -0300 (BRT) Received: from khazad-dum.debian.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (khazad-dum [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 29889-05-2 for ; Thu, 14 Apr 2005 13:59:38 -0300 (BRT) Received: by khazad-dum.debian.net (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 0A9D4200135; Thu, 14 Apr 2005 13:59:38 -0300 (BRT) Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2005 13:59:38 -0300 From: Henrique de Moraes Holschuh To: Brian Nelson Subject: Re: POLL: Should Debian remove all GNU FDL-licensed documentation? Message-ID: <20050414165938.GA3065@khazad-dum.debian.net> References: <20050414034938.GC7651@bignachos.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20050414034938.GC7651@bignachos.com> X-GPG-Fingerprint: 1024D/1CDB0FE3 5422 5C61 F6B7 06FB 7E04 3738 EE25 DE3F 1CDB 0FE3 User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new-20030616-p10 (Debian) at khazad-dum.debian.net X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.2 (2004-11-16) on sirius.bignachos.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=4.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.0.2 Status: RO Content-Length: 1278 > 1. Is it acceptable for Debian to permanently remove most FDL documents > so that they are no longer available on Debian mirrors or on Debian CDs? Yes. > 2. Is it acceptable if all FDL documents were moved to non-free so that > they could still be downloaded from Debian mirrors? Note that they > still would not appear on most Debian CDs. Yes. > 3. Should Debian allow documents without invariant sections in main, and > only remove/move-to-non-free those with invariant sections? No. > 4. Should Debian modify the Social Contract and/or Debian Free Software > Guidelines[1] to allow all FDL documents to remain in the main archive > and appear on Debian CDs? No (you SHOULD HAVE asked about doing this for docs without invariant sections). > 5. Is Debian making a big out of a minor issue? Should Debian be > focusing more on creating a usable operating system and less on worrying > about licensing issues? No. In the end, we are the only ones who really care. If we stop doing what we do, don't expect other distros to defend your freedoms. -- "One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond where the shadows lie." -- The Silicon Valley Tarot Henrique Holschuh From tuxlifan@gmail.com Thu Apr 14 10:57:59 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: nelson@bignachos.com Delivered-To: nelson@bignachos.com Received: from master.debian.org (master.debian.org [146.82.138.7]) by sirius.bignachos.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6260052FD9 for ; Thu, 14 Apr 2005 10:57:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rproxy.gmail.com [64.233.170.194] by master.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 1 (Debian)) id 1DM8bG-0000HX-00; Thu, 14 Apr 2005 12:57:58 -0500 Received: by rproxy.gmail.com with SMTP id j1so428237rnf for ; Thu, 14 Apr 2005 10:57:58 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:reply-to:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=k3tDv9Q279Alpp0aVXjA037MTuumLniCN1Ew1ZWoF9RSXNFhZ9mrhzZbvL7TeopigsidmqtTvG1MMNzMdmHm8DZG836a3X2xx8XNqkpPP1YS0FVTht5bac8WUELSiAjd7qZ/cT+M+leLBbr270a26Rj5xjEy1X7Mn5D/kNa2f3M= Received: by 10.38.65.55 with SMTP id n55mr2045971rna; Thu, 14 Apr 2005 10:57:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.38.14.58 with HTTP; Thu, 14 Apr 2005 10:57:57 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2005 19:57:57 +0200 From: Georg Drees Reply-To: Georg Drees To: Brian Nelson Subject: Re: POLL: Should Debian remove all GNU FDL-licensed documentation? In-Reply-To: <20050414034938.GC7651@bignachos.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline References: <20050414034938.GC7651@bignachos.com> X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.2 (2004-11-16) on sirius.bignachos.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_BY_IP autolearn=ham version=3.0.2 Status: RO Content-Length: 1182 On 4/14/05, Brian Nelson wrote: > 1. Is it acceptable for Debian to permanently remove most FDL documents > so that they are no longer available on Debian mirrors or on Debian CDs? No! > 2. Is it acceptable if all FDL documents were moved to non-free so that > they could still be downloaded from Debian mirrors? Note that they > still would not appear on most Debian CDs. No. (Yes if there's no other way to include them at all) =20 > 3. Should Debian allow documents without invariant sections in main, and > only remove/move-to-non-free those with invariant sections? Yes > 4. Should Debian modify the Social Contract and/or Debian Free Software > Guidelines[1] to allow all FDL documents to remain in the main archive > and appear on Debian CDs? >=20 > [1] http://www.debian.org/social_contract Uhhhh I dunno > 5. Is Debian making a big out of a minor issue? Should Debian be > focusing more on creating a usable operating system and less on worrying > about licensing issues? "Yo", so effectively that's a "Uhhhh I dunno" ;-) It's important to keep those subjects in mind, but shouldn't be the reason for not releasing... cheers, --=20 tuXLifan From nobody Thu Apr 14 14:25:08 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: nelson@bignachos.com Delivered-To: nelson@bignachos.com Received: from master.debian.org (master.debian.org [146.82.138.7]) by sirius.bignachos.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A19652EDE for ; Thu, 14 Apr 2005 14:14:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from li7-90.members.linode.com (randomnode.info) [64.62.231.90] by master.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 1 (Debian)) id 1DMBex-0000Ta-00; Thu, 14 Apr 2005 16:13:59 -0500 Received: from localhost.randomnode.info (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by randomnode.info (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8317F38D7A for ; Thu, 14 Apr 2005 18:13:48 -0300 (BRT) Received: from 127.0.0.1 by localhost.randomnode.info (amavisd-lite) with LMTP id 1113513216-21098-1 for ; Thu Apr 14 18:13:46 2005 Received: from socrates.dnsalias.org (unknown [200.213.106.46]) by randomnode.info (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2904038D79 for ; Thu, 14 Apr 2005 18:13:32 -0300 (BRT) Received: by socrates.dnsalias.org (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 2D1254AF6; Thu, 14 Apr 2005 18:13:37 -0300 (BRT) Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2005 18:13:36 -0300 From: Jeronimo Pellegrini To: Brian Nelson Subject: Re: POLL: Should Debian remove all GNU FDL-licensed documentation? Message-ID: <20050414211336.GA14919@randomnode.info> References: <20050414034938.GC7651@bignachos.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20050414034938.GC7651@bignachos.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-lite at localhost.randomnode.info X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.2 (2004-11-16) on sirius.bignachos.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.0.2 Status: RO Content-Length: 1281 Lines: 38 > Please restrict your answers to "Yes", "No", or "Uhhhh I dunno". In some questions, "yes" or "no" would not be clear, so I had to explain the yes/no answer. > 1. Is it acceptable for Debian to permanently remove most FDL documents > so that they are no longer available on Debian mirrors or on Debian CDs? No. > 2. Is it acceptable if all FDL documents were moved to non-free so that > they could still be downloaded from Debian mirrors? Note that they > still would not appear on most Debian CDs. No -- "Not enough" -- should be on CDs. Yes -- "Yes, if there is no chance to keep them on CDs, keep them in the mirrors" > 3. Should Debian allow documents without invariant sections in main, and > only remove/move-to-non-free those with invariant sections? No -- "They should all be kept in main". Yes -- "*If* GFDL docs are to be moved, then yes, move only the ones with invariant sections." > 4. Should Debian modify the Social Contract and/or Debian Free Software > Guidelines[1] to allow all FDL documents to remain in the main archive > and appear on Debian CDs? Yes. > 5. Is Debian making a big out of a minor issue? Should Debian be > focusing more on creating a usable operating system and less on worrying > about licensing issues? Yes. From nobody Thu Apr 14 14:52:05 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: nelson@bignachos.com Delivered-To: nelson@bignachos.com Received: from master.debian.org (master.debian.org [146.82.138.7]) by sirius.bignachos.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 19B1552FD9 for ; Thu, 14 Apr 2005 14:44:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from oaxaca.jah.net [66.180.235.70] by master.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 1 (Debian)) id 1DMC81-00068z-00; Thu, 14 Apr 2005 16:44:01 -0500 Received: from petong by oaxaca.jah.net with local (Exim 4.34) id 1DMC7w-0000ZZ-2f for pyro@debian.org; Thu, 14 Apr 2005 14:43:56 -0700 Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2005 14:43:56 -0700 From: Pete Hicks To: Brian Nelson Subject: Re: POLL: Should Debian remove all GNU FDL-licensed documentation? Message-ID: <20050414214356.GH29462@oaxaca.jah.net> References: <20050414034938.GC7651@bignachos.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20050414034938.GC7651@bignachos.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i X-conspiracy: yes Sender: Peter Hicks X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.2 (2004-11-16) on sirius.bignachos.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.0.2 Status: RO Content-Length: 936 Lines: 26 On Wed, Apr 13, 2005 at 08:49:38PM -0700, Brian Nelson wrote: > >1. Is it acceptable for Debian to permanently remove most FDL documents >so that they are no longer available on Debian mirrors or on Debian CDs? No > >2. Is it acceptable if all FDL documents were moved to non-free so that >they could still be downloaded from Debian mirrors? Note that they >still would not appear on most Debian CDs. > >3. Should Debian allow documents without invariant sections in main, and >only remove/move-to-non-free those with invariant sections? > >4. Should Debian modify the Social Contract and/or Debian Free Software >Guidelines[1] to allow all FDL documents to remain in the main archive >and appear on Debian CDs? > > [1] http://www.debian.org/social_contract > >5. Is Debian making a big out of a minor issue? Should Debian be >focusing more on creating a usable operating system and less on worrying >about licensing issues? YES! From olive.lin@versateladsl.be Fri Apr 15 02:24:59 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: nelson@bignachos.com Delivered-To: nelson@bignachos.com Received: from master.debian.org (master.debian.org [146.82.138.7]) by sirius.bignachos.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6AA3553081 for ; Fri, 15 Apr 2005 02:24:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from bonito.ulb.ac.be [164.15.59.220] by master.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 1 (Debian)) id 1DMN4J-0008V0-00; Fri, 15 Apr 2005 04:24:55 -0500 Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (maxi.ulb.ac.be [164.15.128.8]) by bonito.ulb.ac.be (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C1D51EFB for ; Fri, 15 Apr 2005 11:24:54 +0200 (CEST) Received: by mach.vub.ac.be (Postfix, from userid 21099) id 359D78D33; Fri, 15 Apr 2005 11:24:54 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [164.15.131.36] (logic-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.131.36]) by mach.vub.ac.be (Postfix) with ESMTP id C31528D2C for ; Fri, 15 Apr 2005 11:24:52 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <425F8869.50204@versateladsl.be> Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2005 11:24:57 +0200 From: Olive User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.7) Gecko/20040618 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Brian Nelson Subject: Re: POLL: Should Debian remove all GNU FDL-licensed documentation? References: <20050414034938.GC7651@bignachos.com> <20050414160830.GB15397@bignachos.com> In-Reply-To: <20050414160830.GB15397@bignachos.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.2 (2004-11-16) on sirius.bignachos.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.0.2 Status: RO Content-Length: 739 Lines: 23 Brian Nelson wrote: > On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 12:30:51PM +0200, Olive wrote: > >>Brian Nelson wrote: >> >>>4. Should Debian modify the Social Contract and/or Debian Free Software >>>Guidelines[1] to allow all FDL documents to remain in the main archive >>>and appear on Debian CDs? >>> >>> [1] http://www.debian.org/social_contract > > > Do you have an answer for this one? Did you intend for the below yes to > apply to both 4 and 5? My opinion is that FDL documents could be include in main without changing the social contract. Rule 4 says that the priorities are the users and free software. Do you think that to discredit the FSF and make many of the FSF software unusable because undocumented would serve this goal? Olive From bounce-debian-user=nelson=bignachos.com@lists.debian.org Thu Apr 14 09:49:24 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: nelson@bignachos.com Delivered-To: nelson@bignachos.com Received: from murphy.debian.org (murphy.debian.org [146.82.138.6]) by sirius.bignachos.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5FE8752EDE for ; Thu, 14 Apr 2005 09:49:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by murphy.debian.org (Postfix) with QMQP id BD5B72E178; Thu, 14 Apr 2005 11:49:18 -0500 (CDT) Old-Return-Path: X-Original-To: debian-user@lists.debian.org Received: from vms042pub.verizon.net (vms042pub.verizon.net [206.46.252.42]) by murphy.debian.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 551242E1AB for ; Thu, 14 Apr 2005 11:49:12 -0500 (CDT) Received: from coyote.coyote.den ([151.205.45.202]) by vms042.mailsrvcs.net (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2 HotFix 0.04 (built Dec 24 2004)) with ESMTPA id <0IEY00LH041ZZXQ6@vms042.mailsrvcs.net> for debian-user@lists.debian.org; Thu, 14 Apr 2005 11:49:11 -0500 (CDT) Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2005 12:49:10 -0400 From: Gene Heskett Subject: Re: POLL: Should Debian remove all GNU FDL-licensed documentation? In-reply-to: <20050414160432.GA15397@bignachos.com> To: debian-user@lists.debian.org Message-id: <200504141249.10927.gene.heskett@verizon.net> Organization: None, usuallly detectable by casual observers MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Content-disposition: inline References: <20050414034938.GC7651@bignachos.com> <20050414160432.GA15397@bignachos.com> User-Agent: KMail/1.7 X-Rc-Virus: 2005-02-17_01 X-Rc-Spam: 2005-03-31_01 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: debian-user@lists.debian.org X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/389614 X-Loop: debian-user@lists.debian.org List-Id: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: List-Archive: Precedence: list Resent-Sender: debian-user-request@lists.debian.org Resent-Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2005 11:49:18 -0500 (CDT) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.2 (2004-11-16) on sirius.bignachos.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=4.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.0.2 Status: RO Content-Length: 950 Lines: 25 On Thursday 14 April 2005 12:04, Brian Nelson wrote: >On Wed, Apr 13, 2005 at 08:49:38PM -0700, Brian Nelson wrote: >> 5. Is Debian making a big out of a minor issue? Should Debian be > > ^ > deal/fuss/hoopla/spat ... > One word, yes. To delete valuable info that has been freely published before makes no sense whatsoever. Its a bit like locking the barn door after its burned to the ground. -- Cheers, Gene "There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order." -Ed Howdershelt (Author) 99.34% setiathome rank, not too shabby for a WV hillbilly Yahoo.com and AOL/TW attorneys please note, additions to the above message by Gene Heskett are: Copyright 2005 by Maurice Eugene Heskett, all rights reserved. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org From nobody Sun Apr 17 11:40:47 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: nelson@bignachos.com Delivered-To: nelson@bignachos.com Received: from master.debian.org (master.debian.org [146.82.138.7]) by sirius.bignachos.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 007FD52F42 for ; Sun, 17 Apr 2005 11:22:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from (mail.slsware.com) [206.168.186.2] by master.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 1 (Debian)) id 1DNEPJ-0001Se-00; Sun, 17 Apr 2005 13:22:09 -0500 Received: from nuk.slsware.lan (noc.slsware.lan [192.168.30.4]) by mail.slsware.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 117CEFB9D for ; Sun, 17 Apr 2005 12:22:09 -0600 (MDT) Received: by nuk.slsware.lan (Postfix, from userid 1000) id A38D97B92D; Sun, 17 Apr 2005 12:22:09 -0600 (MDT) Subject: Re: POLL: Should Debian remove all GNU FDL-licensed documentation? From: Glenn English To: Brian Nelson In-Reply-To: <20050417071847.GC18439@bignachos.com> References: <20050414034938.GC7651@bignachos.com> <20050417071847.GC18439@bignachos.com> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-G2EqhClV1D+zkHyHDYsi" Organization: slsware.com Date: Sun, 17 Apr 2005 12:22:09 -0600 Message-Id: <1113762129.19100.50.camel@nuk.slsware.lan> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.0.4 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.2 (2004-11-16) on sirius.bignachos.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=4.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.0.2 Status: RO Content-Length: 1546 Lines: 57 --=-G2EqhClV1D+zkHyHDYsi Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sun, 2005-04-17 at 00:18 -0700, Brian Nelson wrote: > On Wed, Apr 13, 2005 at 08:49:38PM -0700, Brian Nelson wrote: > > 1. Is it acceptable for Debian to permanently remove most FDL documents > > so that they are no longer available on Debian mirrors or on Debian CDs= ? no > >=20 > > 2. Is it acceptable if all FDL documents were moved to non-free so that > > they could still be downloaded from Debian mirrors? Note that they > > still would not appear on most Debian CDs. no > >=20 > > 3. Should Debian allow documents without invariant sections in main, an= d > > only remove/move-to-non-free those with invariant sections? no > >=20 > > 4. Should Debian modify the Social Contract and/or Debian Free Software > > Guidelines[1] to allow all FDL documents to remain in the main archive > > and appear on Debian CDs? yes > >=20 > > 5. Is Debian making a big out of a minor issue? Should Debian be > > focusing more on creating a usable operating system and less on worryin= g > > about licensing issues? Uhhhh I dunno --=20 Glenn English ghe@slsware.com GPG ID: D0D7FF20 --=-G2EqhClV1D+zkHyHDYsi Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQBCYqlRuLboAdDX/yARAuI4AJ9vkcAij+BOxWWQoMDzh4csFir7ygCeJuGZ E/RF5y0mtiWsm4YYEWGI1FE= =Y+1A -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-G2EqhClV1D+zkHyHDYsi-- From nobody Sun Apr 17 13:42:04 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: nelson@bignachos.com Delivered-To: nelson@bignachos.com Received: from murphy.debian.org (murphy.debian.org [146.82.138.6]) by sirius.bignachos.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C580A52FB7 for ; Sun, 17 Apr 2005 12:07:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by murphy.debian.org (Postfix) with QMQP id E73D32EB7E; Sun, 17 Apr 2005 14:07:34 -0500 (CDT) Old-Return-Path: X-Original-To: debian-user@lists.debian.org Received: from wproxy.gmail.com (wproxy.gmail.com [64.233.184.197]) by murphy.debian.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C58012EBB2 for ; Sun, 17 Apr 2005 13:51:18 -0500 (CDT) Received: by wproxy.gmail.com with SMTP id 69so1031819wra for ; Sun, 17 Apr 2005 11:51:18 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:reply-to:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=YYuPOw8d+R7/XMZHcbbQ/VOgsuJClOnJ/xBONp84JJbezXh2ap/P8DB2tbk2rcjg/ga23nlVG3L5zMDZZB68yYrnmvP1ToxC5erSHHCWfOVH7FsOYfmdJvAErEj0SGG3D9gzK2Q2Or9yN11/Y4jK+v45qxqeLlWi+ugmI23cyWw= Received: by 10.54.79.17 with SMTP id c17mr2813518wrb; Sun, 17 Apr 2005 11:51:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.54.76.10 with HTTP; Sun, 17 Apr 2005 11:51:18 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <32b161910504171151444aa072@mail.gmail.com> Date: Sun, 17 Apr 2005 11:51:18 -0700 From: Evan Heidtmann Reply-To: Evan Heidtmann To: debian-user@lists.debian.org Subject: Re: POLL: Should Debian remove all GNU FDL-licensed documentation? In-Reply-To: <20050414034938.GC7651@bignachos.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline References: <20050414034938.GC7651@bignachos.com> X-Rc-Spam: 2005-03-31_01 X-Rc-Virus: 2005-02-17_01 X-Rc-Spam: 2005-03-31_01 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: debian-user@lists.debian.org X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/389942 X-Loop: debian-user@lists.debian.org List-Id: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: List-Archive: Precedence: list Resent-Sender: debian-user-request@lists.debian.org Resent-Date: Sun, 17 Apr 2005 14:07:34 -0500 (CDT) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.2 (2004-11-16) on sirius.bignachos.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_BY_IP autolearn=ham version=3.0.2 Status: RO Content-Length: 1013 Lines: 28 On 4/13/05, Brian Nelson wrote: > 1. Is it acceptable for Debian to permanently remove most FDL documents > so that they are no longer available on Debian mirrors or on Debian CDs? No. > 2. Is it acceptable if all FDL documents were moved to non-free so that > they could still be downloaded from Debian mirrors? Note that they > still would not appear on most Debian CDs. Yes. > 3. Should Debian allow documents without invariant sections in main, and > only remove/move-to-non-free those with invariant sections? Sure, but only if something has to leave. > 4. Should Debian modify the Social Contract and/or Debian Free Software > Guidelines[1] to allow all FDL documents to remain in the main archive > and appear on Debian CDs? Maybe. I'll leave this to those who understand the goals of the document. > 5. Is Debian making a big deal out of a minor issue? Should Debian be > focusing more on creating a usable operating system and less on worrying > about licensing issues? Yes. From martyb@ix.netcom.com Sun Apr 17 14:07:32 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: nelson@bignachos.com Delivered-To: nelson@bignachos.com Received: from master.debian.org (master.debian.org [146.82.138.7]) by sirius.bignachos.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A167C52FF4 for ; Sun, 17 Apr 2005 14:07:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pop-a065c28.pas.sa.earthlink.net [207.217.121.205] by master.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 1 (Debian)) id 1DNGzM-0008AZ-00; Sun, 17 Apr 2005 16:07:32 -0500 Received: from h-69-3-69-25.sfldmidn.dynamic.covad.net ([69.3.69.25] helo=[10.1.21.2]) by pop-a065c28.pas.sa.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.36 #10) id 1DNGzL-0003v4-00 for pyro@debian.org; Sun, 17 Apr 2005 14:07:31 -0700 Message-ID: <4262D012.2020209@ix.netcom.com> Date: Sun, 17 Apr 2005 17:07:30 -0400 From: Marty User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.7.6) Gecko/20050324 Debian/1.7.6-1 X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Brian Nelson Subject: Re: POLL: Should Debian remove all GNU FDL-licensed documentation? References: <20050414034938.GC7651@bignachos.com> In-Reply-To: <20050414034938.GC7651@bignachos.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.2 (2004-11-16) on sirius.bignachos.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=4.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.0.2 Status: RO Content-Length: 1004 Lines: 41 Brian Nelson wrote: > 1. Is it acceptable for Debian to permanently remove most FDL documents > so that they are no longer available on Debian mirrors or on Debian CDs? no > > 2. Is it acceptable if all FDL documents were moved to non-free so that > they could still be downloaded from Debian mirrors? Note that they > still would not appear on most Debian CDs. no > > 3. Should Debian allow documents without invariant sections in main, and > only remove/move-to-non-free those with invariant sections? no > > 4. Should Debian modify the Social Contract and/or Debian Free Software > Guidelines[1] to allow all FDL documents to remain in the main archive > and appear on Debian CDs? no > > [1] http://www.debian.org/social_contract > > 5. Is Debian making a big out of a minor issue? Should Debian be > focusing more on creating a usable operating system and less on worrying > about licensing issues? yes > > > Please restrict your answers to "Yes", "No", or "Uhhhh I dunno". > From bounce-debian-user=nelson=bignachos.com@lists.debian.org Sun Apr 17 16:15:08 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: nelson@bignachos.com Delivered-To: nelson@bignachos.com Received: from murphy.debian.org (murphy.debian.org [146.82.138.6]) by sirius.bignachos.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC12D52FC7 for ; Sun, 17 Apr 2005 16:15:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by murphy.debian.org (Postfix) with QMQP id 310202F864; Sun, 17 Apr 2005 18:15:07 -0500 (CDT) Old-Return-Path: X-Original-To: debian-user@lists.debian.org Received: from smtp812.mail.sc5.yahoo.com (smtp812.mail.sc5.yahoo.com [66.163.170.82]) by murphy.debian.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 346C32DE70 for ; Sun, 17 Apr 2005 18:15:01 -0500 (CDT) Received: from unknown (HELO slider.shadypond.com) (pollywog1@sbcglobal.net@66.122.63.10 with plain) by smtp812.mail.sc5.yahoo.com with SMTP; 17 Apr 2005 23:15:00 -0000 From: Pollywog To: debian-user@lists.debian.org Subject: Re: POLL: Should Debian remove all GNU FDL-licensed documentation? Date: Sun, 17 Apr 2005 23:16:05 +0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.7.2 References: <20050414034938.GC7651@bignachos.com> <200504171732.33244.linux-debian@shadypond.com> <87sm1pb0bq.fsf@bignachos.com> In-Reply-To: <87sm1pb0bq.fsf@bignachos.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200504172316.05673.linux-debian@shadypond.com> X-Rc-Virus: 2005-02-17_01 X-Rc-Spam: 2005-03-31_01 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: debian-user@lists.debian.org X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/389952 X-Loop: debian-user@lists.debian.org List-Id: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: List-Archive: Precedence: list Resent-Sender: debian-user-request@lists.debian.org Resent-Date: Sun, 17 Apr 2005 18:15:07 -0500 (CDT) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.2 (2004-11-16) on sirius.bignachos.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=4.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.0.2 Status: RO Content-Length: 1032 1. Is it acceptable for Debian to permanently remove most FDL documents so that they are no longer available on Debian mirrors or on Debian CDs? Ans: no 2. Is it acceptable if all FDL documents were moved to non-free so that they could still be downloaded from Debian mirrors? Note that they still would not appear on most Debian CDs. Ans: yes 3. Should Debian allow documents without invariant sections in main, and only remove/move-to-non-free those with invariant sections? Ans: yes 4. Should Debian modify the Social Contract and/or Debian Free Software Guidelines[1] to allow all FDL documents to remain in the main archive and appear on Debian CDs? Ans: Uhhhh, I dunno 5. Is Debian making a big out of a minor issue? Ans: Uhhhh, I dunno Should Debian be focusing more on creating a usable operating system and less on worrying about licensing issues? Ans: yes -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org From bounce-debian-user=nelson=bignachos.com@lists.debian.org Sun Apr 17 18:24:55 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: nelson@bignachos.com Delivered-To: nelson@bignachos.com Received: from murphy.debian.org (murphy.debian.org [146.82.138.6]) by sirius.bignachos.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A5AC53008 for ; Sun, 17 Apr 2005 18:24:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by murphy.debian.org (Postfix) with QMQP id 444EC2F88D; Sun, 17 Apr 2005 20:24:48 -0500 (CDT) Old-Return-Path: X-Original-To: debian-user@lists.debian.org Received: from wproxy.gmail.com (wproxy.gmail.com [64.233.184.197]) by murphy.debian.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 60E7D2DDA0 for ; Sun, 17 Apr 2005 20:24:42 -0500 (CDT) Received: by wproxy.gmail.com with SMTP id 69so1070789wra for ; Sun, 17 Apr 2005 18:24:42 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:reply-to:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=fanNoeY4b1OQNhR+BQn9CzL4wvU1GueyoCHf3hhbhGf+9bIyiEbJOAO1gjz8xKLq4IpMYnV3TNoCZEYs2bittAxbpeNkiP0tsRLpkbPA5VYJG/65ZaQBgCZodoHE0dweFJ92XKyGvmWvZD6nQLZXfw3raLkre2hYhNCx2LJOqzI= Received: by 10.54.79.17 with SMTP id c17mr3020950wrb; Sun, 17 Apr 2005 18:24:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.54.38.53 with HTTP; Sun, 17 Apr 2005 18:24:42 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2005 09:24:42 +0800 From: Paolo Alexis Falcone Reply-To: Paolo Alexis Falcone To: debian-user@lists.debian.org Subject: Re: POLL: Should Debian remove all GNU FDL-licensed documentation? In-Reply-To: <20050414034938.GC7651@bignachos.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline References: <20050414034938.GC7651@bignachos.com> X-Rc-Virus: 2005-02-17_01 X-Rc-Spam: 2005-03-31_01 Resent-Message-ID: <53zLUB.A.oqF.gxwYCB@murphy> Resent-From: debian-user@lists.debian.org X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/389960 X-Loop: debian-user@lists.debian.org List-Id: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: List-Archive: Precedence: list Resent-Sender: debian-user-request@lists.debian.org Resent-Date: Sun, 17 Apr 2005 20:24:48 -0500 (CDT) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.2 (2004-11-16) on sirius.bignachos.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=4.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_BY_IP autolearn=ham version=3.0.2 Status: RO Content-Length: 3181 On 4/14/05, Brian Nelson wrote: > It seems that after sarge is released, Debian developers are planning to > declare the GNU Free Documentation License non-free. This means that > all FDL documents currently in main will be either removed from the > archive altogether or moved into the non-free archive. Since putting > documentation in non-free requires a creation and maintenance of a new > and separate source package, I believe most of the documentation will be > removed completely. Only the most popular documents, or those with > maintainers willing to maintain them will appear in non-free. >=20 > Affected documents include virtually all documentation released by the > FSF, including: >=20 > * The various Emacs manuals > * The GDB manual > * The GCC manual > * The glibc manual > * The GNU make manual > and many others... >=20 > The three major releases for the GFDL being declared non-free are: >=20 > * Invariant Sections > * The "DRM" restriction > * Transparent and Opaque copies >=20 > Invariant sections are "secondary sections" that must not contain > anything that could fall directly within the document's overall subject. > They cannot be modified or removed from the document. Most FDL > documents do not contain invariant sections--I only count 6 on my > system, though 5 of them are listed above. >=20 > The "DRM" restriction refers to the FDL clause that disallows "technical > measures to obstruct or control" reading and copying. This is intended > to prevent the use of DRM on FDL documents, but can be interpreted to > mean that you can't use FDL on encrypted filesystems (though this is not > the intent of the writers of the FDL). >=20 > I honestly don't understand the problem with the "Transparent and Opaque > copies", so I won't try to summarize that here. You may find a > discussion of it in the position statement link below. >=20 > You may find the full text of the FDL here: >=20 > http://www.gnu.org/licenses/fdl.html >=20 > And a draft Debian position statement here: >=20 > http://people.debian.org/~srivasta/Position_Statement.xhtml >=20 > And now for the questions: >=20 > 1. Is it acceptable for Debian to permanently remove most FDL documents > so that they are no longer available on Debian mirrors or on Debian CDs? No. >=20 > 2. Is it acceptable if all FDL documents were moved to non-free so that > they could still be downloaded from Debian mirrors? Note that they > still would not appear on most Debian CDs. >=20 No.=20 > 3. Should Debian allow documents without invariant sections in main, and > only remove/move-to-non-free those with invariant sections? >=20 No. > 4. Should Debian modify the Social Contract and/or Debian Free Software > Guidelines[1] to allow all FDL documents to remain in the main archive > and appear on Debian CDs? No. > [1] http://www.debian.org/social_contract >=20 > 5. Is Debian making a big out of a minor issue? Should Debian be > focusing more on creating a usable operating system and less on worrying > about licensing issues? Yes >=20 > Please restrict your answers to "Yes", "No", or "Uhhhh I dunno". --=20 Paolo Alexis Falcone pfalcone@gmail.com From keeling@spots.ab.ca Sun Apr 17 19:42:07 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: nelson@bignachos.com Delivered-To: nelson@bignachos.com Received: from master.debian.org (master.debian.org [146.82.138.7]) by sirius.bignachos.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9EF1552FF4 for ; Sun, 17 Apr 2005 19:42:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ocelot.spots.ab.ca [209.115.174.244] by master.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 1 (Debian)) id 1DNMD5-0002w0-00; Sun, 17 Apr 2005 21:42:03 -0500 Received: from localhost (opp003@pm3-127.spots.ab.ca [209.115.174.106]) by ocelot.spots.ab.ca (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id j3I2fwPM017723 for ; Sun, 17 Apr 2005 20:41:58 -0600 Received: from keeling by localhost with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1DNMD2-0002Gs-00 for ; Sun, 17 Apr 2005 20:42:00 -0600 Date: Sun, 17 Apr 2005 20:42:00 -0600 From: "s. keeling" To: Brian Nelson Subject: Re: POLL: Should Debian remove all GNU FDL-licensed documentation? Message-ID: <20050418024159.GB8497@infidel.spots.ab.ca> References: <20050414034938.GC7651@bignachos.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20050414034938.GC7651@bignachos.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i X-PGP-Key: GPG key: http://keyserver.noreply.org/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x48EE77B1AC94E4B7 Sender: "s. keeling" X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV version 0.83, clamav-milter version 0.83 on ocelot.spots.ab.ca X-Virus-Status: Clean X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.2 (2004-11-16) on sirius.bignachos.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=4.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.0.2 Status: RO Content-Length: 1649 Incoming from Brian Nelson: > > And now for the questions: > > 1. Is it acceptable for Debian to permanently remove most FDL documents > so that they are no longer available on Debian mirrors or on Debian CDs? Yes > 2. Is it acceptable if all FDL documents were moved to non-free so that > they could still be downloaded from Debian mirrors? Note that they > still would not appear on most Debian CDs. Yes > 3. Should Debian allow documents without invariant sections in main, and > only remove/move-to-non-free those with invariant sections? Um, what? > 4. Should Debian modify the Social Contract and/or Debian Free Software > Guidelines[1] to allow all FDL documents to remain in the main archive > and appear on Debian CDs? No. > 5. Is Debian making a big out of a minor issue? Should Debian be > focusing more on creating a usable operating system and less on worrying > about licensing issues? No. P. S. The legal climate exists, and Debian has to exist within it. If (fscking lawyers) someone, someday, decides to take Debian to task, it's up to the Debian people AT THAT TIME to deal with the assault. At THIS time, it's up to the EXISTING Debian people to make THOSE PEOPLE'S jobs possible. P. P. S. Debian is a "way of life." Others may not think such high-falutin' morality is necessary. I consider it part of the core of Debian. Without it, Debian would exist in name only. Do polls actually mean anything? No. HAND. -- Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced. (*) http://www.spots.ab.ca/~keeling Please don't Cc: me. - - From bounce-debian-user=nelson=bignachos.com@lists.debian.org Sun Apr 17 21:09:21 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: nelson@bignachos.com Delivered-To: nelson@bignachos.com Received: from murphy.debian.org (murphy.debian.org [146.82.138.6]) by sirius.bignachos.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 524FA53008 for ; Sun, 17 Apr 2005 21:09:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by murphy.debian.org (Postfix) with QMQP id CB4032F8B1; Sun, 17 Apr 2005 23:09:19 -0500 (CDT) Old-Return-Path: X-Original-To: debian-user@lists.debian.org Received: from vscan01.westnet.com.au (vscan01.westnet.com.au [203.10.1.131]) by murphy.debian.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8BAFB2DD8E for ; Sun, 17 Apr 2005 23:09:13 -0500 (CDT) Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with ESMTP id A219814C394 for ; Mon, 18 Apr 2005 12:06:57 +0800 (WST) Received: from vscan01.westnet.com.au ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (vscan01.westnet.com.au [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 27993-02 for ; Mon, 18 Apr 2005 12:06:57 +0800 (WST) Received: from belle (dsl-202-72-140-85.wa.westnet.com.au [202.72.140.85]) by vscan01.westnet.com.au (Postfix) with ESMTP id EEEB814CBA3 for ; Mon, 18 Apr 2005 12:06:55 +0800 (WST) Received: from rjp by belle with local (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 1DNOXw-0006o5-00 for ; Mon, 18 Apr 2005 13:11:44 +0800 Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2005 13:11:39 +0800 From: Russ Pitman To: debian-user@lists.debian.org Subject: Re: POLL: Should Debian remove all GNU FDL-licensed documentation? Message-ID: <20050418051139.GA23660@belle> Mail-Followup-To: debian-user@lists.debian.org References: <20050414034938.GC7651@bignachos.com> <20050417071847.GC18439@bignachos.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20050417071847.GC18439@bignachos.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6+20040907i Sender: russ pitman X-Rc-Virus: 2005-02-17_01 X-Rc-Spam: 2005-03-31_01 Resent-Message-ID: <52s_mB.A.qJF.vLzYCB@murphy> Resent-From: debian-user@lists.debian.org X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/389968 X-Loop: debian-user@lists.debian.org List-Id: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: List-Archive: Precedence: list Resent-Sender: debian-user-request@lists.debian.org Resent-Date: Sun, 17 Apr 2005 23:09:19 -0500 (CDT) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.2 (2004-11-16) on sirius.bignachos.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.0.2 Status: RO Content-Length: 1736 Brian Nelson wrote: > Response to this poll has been quite poor so far, so I'll continue > accepting answers for another day or two before posting the results. If > you have an opinion on this matter, please voice it! > > On Wed, Apr 13, 2005 at 08:49:38PM -0700, Brian Nelson wrote: > > 1. Is it acceptable for Debian to permanently remove most FDL documents > > so that they are no longer available on Debian mirrors or on Debian CDs? > > No. > > 2. Is it acceptable if all FDL documents were moved to non-free so that > > they could still be downloaded from Debian mirrors? Note that they > > still would not appear on most Debian CDs. > > No. > > 3. Should Debian allow documents without invariant sections in main, and > > only remove/move-to-non-free those with invariant sections? > > No. > > 4. Should Debian modify the Social Contract and/or Debian Free Software > > Guidelines[1] to allow all FDL documents to remain in the main archive > > and appear on Debian CDs? > > Yes. > > [1] http://www.debian.org/social_contract > > > > 5. Is Debian making a big out of a minor issue? Should Debian be > > focusing more on creating a usable operating system and less on worrying > > about licensing issues? > > Yes. > > > > Please restrict your answers to "Yes", "No", or "Uhhhh I dunno". > > -- > Society is never going to make any progress until we all learn to > pretend to like each other. > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org -- Cheers, Russ. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org From kk5st2@verizon.net Sun Apr 17 22:55:21 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: nelson@bignachos.com Delivered-To: nelson@bignachos.com Received: from master.debian.org (master.debian.org [146.82.138.7]) by sirius.bignachos.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC3D353008 for ; Sun, 17 Apr 2005 22:55:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from vms044pub.verizon.net [206.46.252.44] by master.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 1 (Debian)) id 1DNPE9-0004oZ-00; Mon, 18 Apr 2005 00:55:21 -0500 Received: from [192.168.1.47] ([71.97.15.96]) by vms044.mailsrvcs.net (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2 HotFix 0.04 (built Dec 24 2004)) with ESMTPA id <0IF400G0FOG83CR8@vms044.mailsrvcs.net> for pyro@debian.org; Mon, 18 Apr 2005 00:55:20 -0500 (CDT) Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2005 00:54:42 -0500 From: Gary Turner Subject: Re: POLL: Should Debian remove all GNU FDL-licensed documentation? In-reply-to: <20050417071847.GC18439@bignachos.com> To: Brian Nelson Message-id: <42634BA2.9040104@verizon.net> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Accept-Language: en-us, en References: <20050414034938.GC7651@bignachos.com> <20050417071847.GC18439@bignachos.com> User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.8 (Windows/20040913) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.2 (2004-11-16) on sirius.bignachos.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_00,DNS_FROM_RFC_POST autolearn=no version=3.0.2 Status: RO Content-Length: 1148 Brian Nelson wrote: > On Wed, Apr 13, 2005 at 08:49:38PM -0700, Brian Nelson wrote: > >>1. Is it acceptable for Debian to permanently remove most FDL documents >>so that they are no longer available on Debian mirrors or on Debian CDs? no >> >>2. Is it acceptable if all FDL documents were moved to non-free so that >>they could still be downloaded from Debian mirrors? Note that they >>still would not appear on most Debian CDs. no >> >>3. Should Debian allow documents without invariant sections in main, and >>only remove/move-to-non-free those with invariant sections? uhhhh, I dunno >> >>4. Should Debian modify the Social Contract and/or Debian Free Software >>Guidelines[1] to allow all FDL documents to remain in the main archive >>and appear on Debian CDs? yes >> >> [1] http://www.debian.org/social_contract >> >>5. Is Debian making a big out of a minor issue? Should Debian be >>focusing more on creating a usable operating system and less on worrying >>about licensing issues? uhhhh, I dunno cheers, gary -- Anyone can build a usable web site. It takes a graphics designer to make it slow, confusing, and painful to use. From alexei.chetroi@lexa.uniflux-line.net Mon Apr 18 01:01:14 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: nelson@bignachos.com Delivered-To: nelson@bignachos.com Received: from master.debian.org (master.debian.org [146.82.138.7]) by sirius.bignachos.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A6F752FF4 for ; Mon, 18 Apr 2005 01:01:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from host-217-26-168-126.uniflux-line.net (lexa.uniflux-line.net) [217.26.168.126] by master.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 1 (Debian)) id 1DNRBy-00064L-00; Mon, 18 Apr 2005 03:01:14 -0500 Received: from localhost (lexa [127.0.0.1]) by lexa.uniflux-line.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 084FCF00F for ; Mon, 18 Apr 2005 11:01:04 +0300 (EEST) Received: from lexa.uniflux-line.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (lexa.uniflux-line.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 12660-02 for ; Mon, 18 Apr 2005 11:00:59 +0300 (EEST) Received: by lexa.uniflux-line.net (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 071BFF009; Mon, 18 Apr 2005 11:00:59 +0300 (EEST) Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2005 11:00:58 +0300 From: Alexei Chetroi To: Brian Nelson Subject: Re: POLL: Should Debian remove all GNU FDL-licensed documentation? Message-ID: <20050418080058.GA12791@lexa.uniflux-line.net> References: <20050414034938.GC7651@bignachos.com> <20050417071847.GC18439@bignachos.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20050417071847.GC18439@bignachos.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6+20040907i X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new-20030616-p10 (Debian) at uniflux-line.net X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.2 (2004-11-16) on sirius.bignachos.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=4.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.0.2 Status: RO Content-Length: 1346 On Sun, Apr 17, 2005 at 12:18:47AM -0700, Brian Nelson wrote: > Date: Sun, 17 Apr 2005 00:18:47 -0700 > From: Brian Nelson > User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i > To: debian-user@lists.debian.org > Subject: Re: POLL: Should Debian remove all GNU FDL-licensed documentation? > > On Wed, Apr 13, 2005 at 08:49:38PM -0700, Brian Nelson wrote: > 1. Is it acceptable for Debian to permanently remove most FDL documents > so that they are no longer available on Debian mirrors or on Debian CDs? No > > 2. Is it acceptable if all FDL documents were moved to non-free so that > they could still be downloaded from Debian mirrors? Note that they > still would not appear on most Debian CDs. Yes > > 3. Should Debian allow documents without invariant sections in main, and > only remove/move-to-non-free those with invariant sections? Yes > > 4. Should Debian modify the Social Contract and/or Debian Free Software > Guidelines[1] to allow all FDL documents to remain in the main archive > and appear on Debian CDs? Uhhhh, I dunno > > [1] http://www.debian.org/social_contract > > 5. Is Debian making a big out of a minor issue? Should Debian be > focusing more on creating a usable operating system and less on worrying > about licensing issues? No Best wishes -- Alexei Chetroi Smile... Tomorrow will be worse. (c) Murphy's Law From thamer@newkuwait.org Mon Apr 18 08:13:29 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: nelson@bignachos.com Delivered-To: nelson@bignachos.com Received: from master.debian.org (master.debian.org [146.82.138.7]) by sirius.bignachos.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B30B552FF4 for ; Mon, 18 Apr 2005 08:13:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ns2.fasttelco.net [62.215.6.5] by master.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 1 (Debian)) id 1DNXwG-0003K6-00; Mon, 18 Apr 2005 10:13:29 -0500 Received: from matara ([62.215.82.136]) by ns2.fasttelco.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 (built May 7 2001)) with SMTP id <0IF500M3QDLEM3@ns2.fasttelco.net> for pyro@debian.org; Mon, 18 Apr 2005 17:58:26 +0300 (GMT) Received: from zemblan ([192.168.111.2]) by matara with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1DNXxU-0003xB-Q4 for pyro@debian.org; Mon, 18 Apr 2005 18:14:44 +0300 Received: from thamer by zemblan with local (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 1DNXwE-0000eh-00 for ; Mon, 18 Apr 2005 18:13:26 +0300 Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2005 18:13:26 +0300 From: Thamer Mahmoud Subject: Re: POLL: Should Debian remove all GNU FDL-licensed documentation? In-reply-to: <20050414034938.GC7651@bignachos.com> To: Brian Nelson Message-id: <87is2kunhl.fsf@hotmail.com> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT User-Agent: Gnus/5.1007 (Gnus v5.10.7) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) References: <20050414034938.GC7651@bignachos.com> X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.2 (2004-11-16) on sirius.bignachos.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.4 required=4.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,INVALID_TZ_GMT autolearn=no version=3.0.2 Status: RO Content-Length: 1341 Brian Nelson writes: > 1. Is it acceptable for Debian to permanently remove most FDL documents > so that they are no longer available on Debian mirrors or on Debian CDs? > No > 2. Is it acceptable if all FDL documents were moved to non-free so that > they could still be downloaded from Debian mirrors? Note that they > still would not appear on most Debian CDs. > No > 3. Should Debian allow documents without invariant sections in main, and > only remove/move-to-non-free those with invariant sections? > uhh.. Yes. IMHO, a case by case invariant examination (percent to document, content..etc) seems to be the most ideal solution. > 4. Should Debian modify the Social Contract and/or Debian Free Software > Guidelines[1] to allow all FDL documents to remain in the main archive > and appear on Debian CDs? > > [1] http://www.debian.org/social_contract > I don't know. > 5. Is Debian making a big out of a minor issue? Should Debian be > focusing more on creating a usable operating system and less on worrying > about licensing issues? > Yes (but only in the case of documentation and the GFDL), otherwise software licensing/freedom is an essential part of having a usable Free OS, and I'm glad that Debian is doing the dirty work of license reading and examining on our behalf. Regards, Thamer Mahmoud From clive@clivemenzies.co.uk Mon Apr 18 10:20:05 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: nelson@bignachos.com Delivered-To: nelson@bignachos.com Received: from master.debian.org (master.debian.org [146.82.138.7]) by sirius.bignachos.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3EBED52FF4 for ; Mon, 18 Apr 2005 10:20:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ptb-relay02.plus.net [212.159.14.213] by master.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 1 (Debian)) id 1DNZuj-00081w-00; Mon, 18 Apr 2005 12:20:01 -0500 Received: from [212.159.73.122] (helo=localhost.localdomain) by ptb-relay02.plus.net with esmtp (Exim) id 1DNZuh-0007Qy-W8 for pyro@debian.org; Mon, 18 Apr 2005 17:20:00 +0000 Received: from clive by localhost.localdomain with local (Exim 4.50) id 1DNZuj-0001NO-HT for pyro@debian.org; Mon, 18 Apr 2005 18:20:01 +0100 Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2005 18:20:01 +0100 From: Clive Menzies To: Brian Nelson Subject: Re: POLL: Should Debian remove all GNU FDL-licensed documentation? Message-ID: <20050418172001.GH4508@clivemenzies.co.uk> References: <20050414034938.GC7651@bignachos.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20050414034938.GC7651@bignachos.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.2 (2004-11-16) on sirius.bignachos.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=4.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.0.2 Status: RO Content-Length: 3739 On (13/04/05 20:49), Brian Nelson wrote: > It seems that after sarge is released, Debian developers are planning to > declare the GNU Free Documentation License non-free. This means that > all FDL documents currently in main will be either removed from the > archive altogether or moved into the non-free archive. Since putting > documentation in non-free requires a creation and maintenance of a new > and separate source package, I believe most of the documentation will be > removed completely. Only the most popular documents, or those with > maintainers willing to maintain them will appear in non-free. > > Affected documents include virtually all documentation released by the > FSF, including: > > * The various Emacs manuals > * The GDB manual > * The GCC manual > * The glibc manual > * The GNU make manual > and many others... > > The three major releases for the GFDL being declared non-free are: > > * Invariant Sections > * The "DRM" restriction > * Transparent and Opaque copies > > Invariant sections are "secondary sections" that must not contain > anything that could fall directly within the document's overall subject. > They cannot be modified or removed from the document. Most FDL > documents do not contain invariant sections--I only count 6 on my > system, though 5 of them are listed above. > > The "DRM" restriction refers to the FDL clause that disallows "technical > measures to obstruct or control" reading and copying. This is intended > to prevent the use of DRM on FDL documents, but can be interpreted to > mean that you can't use FDL on encrypted filesystems (though this is not > the intent of the writers of the FDL). > > I honestly don't understand the problem with the "Transparent and Opaque > copies", so I won't try to summarize that here. You may find a > discussion of it in the position statement link below. > > You may find the full text of the FDL here: > > http://www.gnu.org/licenses/fdl.html > > And a draft Debian position statement here: > > http://people.debian.org/~srivasta/Position_Statement.xhtml > > > And now for the questions: > > 1. Is it acceptable for Debian to permanently remove most FDL documents > so that they are no longer available on Debian mirrors or on Debian CDs? No > 2. Is it acceptable if all FDL documents were moved to non-free so that > they could still be downloaded from Debian mirrors? Note that they > still would not appear on most Debian CDs. Yes > 3. Should Debian allow documents without invariant sections in main, and > only remove/move-to-non-free those with invariant sections? Yes > 4. Should Debian modify the Social Contract and/or Debian Free Software > Guidelines[1] to allow all FDL documents to remain in the main archive > and appear on Debian CDs? Don't know (not studied the issue in sufficient depth) > > [1] http://www.debian.org/social_contract > > 5. Is Debian making a big out of a minor issue? Should Debian be > focusing more on creating a usable operating system and less on worrying > about licensing issues? Not necessarily - Debian has been nurtured by strict adherence to its principles and is understandably reluctant to weaken restrictions that may threaten its purity. > > Please restrict your answers to "Yes", "No", or "Uhhhh I dunno". Thank you for devoting your time to this, we may all ultimately be grateful for your intervention ;) Regards Clive > -- > Society is never going to make any progress until we all learn to > pretend to like each other. > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org > -- www.clivemenzies.co.uk ... ...strategies for business