Subject: Re: Preprints/Reprints of Academic Papers in Packages - msg#00031

Previous Message by Date: click to view message preview

Re: Preprints/Reprints of Academic Papers in Packages

On Sun, Mar 17, 2002 at 02:10:17PM -0800, C.M. Connelly wrote: > Exactly. So the question is, does the DFSG really apply to > documentation or not? Of course it does. Read the Debian Social Contract. 1. Debian Will Remain 100% Free Software We promise to keep the Debian GNU/Linux Distribution entirely free software. As there are many definitions of free software, we include the guidelines we use to determine if software is "free" below. We will support our users who develop and run non-free software on Debian, but we will never make the system depend on an item of non-free software. The Debian Distribution is entirely, 100% Free Software. If it's software, it must be Free to be part of the Distribution. We can treat all kinds of things as "software" for the purposes of our social contract (documentation, images, sound files, sample core dumps from a PDP-11 -- whatever). In doing so, however, this non-software must meet the same critera as software -- that is, it must be Free -- or it cannot be part of our distribution. That's the current status. To change it will require a General Resolution. People are way too hung up on this "documentation" issue. Somehow people have the notion that its more legitimate for copyright holders to withhold the freedoms that we insist upon when we're talking about something that isn't software in the strictest sense. In that case, I invite you to purge from your Debian/GNU system *EVERYTHING* that is not software according to definition you think we should be applying. Then get back to me and tell me how useful the system is. I imaging that people who are accustomed to the GNOME or KDE desktop environments, or even manual pages, with find their experience compromised. -- G. Branden Robinson | Exercise your freedom of religion. Debian GNU/Linux | Set fire to a church of your branden@xxxxxxxxxx | choice. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | pgpVTBwWSCGiN.pgp Description: PGP signature

Next Message by Date: click to view message preview

Re: Cryptographic software in main archive

On Sun, Mar 24, 2002 at 10:58:44AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > (Public followup since this'll probably come up again. Discussion should > probably go to debian-legal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx) > On Sat, Mar 23, 2002 at 09:20:03PM +0100, Marek Michalkiewicz wrote: > > > * There are a whole bunch of GPLed programs that link against > > > libssl. This isn't okay, see the OpenSSL FAQ's response: > > > http://www.openssl.org/support/faq.html#LEGAL2 > > > We've been lax about this in the past, we'll try to get this > > > right as packages are uploaded to main. > > 2. Can I use OpenSSL with GPL software? > > On many systems including the major Linux and BSD distributions, yes > > (the GPL does not place restrictions on using libraries that are part > > of the normal operating system distribution). > Sorry, this isn't precisely accurate on the OpenBSD folks part. The GPL > allows you to use this exception "unless [the library] accompanies the > executable" which it would if the executable were allowed into main. It's > the exact same situation we had with KDE/Qt. With this reasoning, the only other way it's legal to distribute GPL binaries linked against glibc and other LGPLed libraries (which are also distributed in main) is if those LGPLed libraries are distributed under the GPL, per section 3 of the LGPL. There is no qualitative difference between glibc and OpenSSL in this regard; if one must be GPLed to be linked against, then so must the other. And we can't distribute glibc under the terms of the GPL, because then we can't link any other /non/ GPL software against it. If your interpretation of the GPL is correct, we are therefore in violation of the GPL for distributing any GPLed binaries together with LGPLed glibc binaries. Either additional clarification of the GPL is necessary to protect all Linux distributors from being taken to court for license/copyright violation; or this is a misinterpretation of what it means for a component to "[accompany] the executable", and distribution of GPL binaries together with glibc really /is/ permitted -- in which case, we must again ask the question of why the same exemption would not be extended to the OpenSSL libraries. Steve Langasek postmodern programmer pgpeNR04LV7TL.pgp Description: PGP signature

Previous Message by Thread: click to view message preview

Re: Preprints/Reprints of Academic Papers in Packages

On Sun, Mar 17, 2002 at 02:10:17PM -0800, C.M. Connelly wrote: > Exactly. So the question is, does the DFSG really apply to > documentation or not? Of course it does. Read the Debian Social Contract. 1. Debian Will Remain 100% Free Software We promise to keep the Debian GNU/Linux Distribution entirely free software. As there are many definitions of free software, we include the guidelines we use to determine if software is "free" below. We will support our users who develop and run non-free software on Debian, but we will never make the system depend on an item of non-free software. The Debian Distribution is entirely, 100% Free Software. If it's software, it must be Free to be part of the Distribution. We can treat all kinds of things as "software" for the purposes of our social contract (documentation, images, sound files, sample core dumps from a PDP-11 -- whatever). In doing so, however, this non-software must meet the same critera as software -- that is, it must be Free -- or it cannot be part of our distribution. That's the current status. To change it will require a General Resolution. People are way too hung up on this "documentation" issue. Somehow people have the notion that its more legitimate for copyright holders to withhold the freedoms that we insist upon when we're talking about something that isn't software in the strictest sense. In that case, I invite you to purge from your Debian/GNU system *EVERYTHING* that is not software according to definition you think we should be applying. Then get back to me and tell me how useful the system is. I imaging that people who are accustomed to the GNOME or KDE desktop environments, or even manual pages, with find their experience compromised. -- G. Branden Robinson | Exercise your freedom of religion. Debian GNU/Linux | Set fire to a church of your branden@xxxxxxxxxx | choice. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | pgpVTBwWSCGiN.pgp Description: PGP signature

Next Message by Thread: click to view message preview

Re: Preprints/Reprints of Academic Papers in Packages

On Sun, Mar 17, 2002 at 10:24:36AM +0000, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote: > I would also guess that in most cases the availability of source is > irrelevant, because the academic paper isn't available under a > DFSG-free licence anyway; most authors of academic papers don't want > other people distributing modified versions of them. This isn't a > serious restriction, because no one would want to do that anyway, but > it means that academic papers are generally not DFSG-free. I want to do it. Marcus -- `Rhubarb is no Egyptian god.' Debian http://www.debian.org brinkmd@xxxxxxxxxx Marcus Brinkmann GNU http://www.gnu.org marcus@xxxxxxx Marcus.Brinkmann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://www.marcus-brinkmann.de -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx