Re: Why licenses don't need to be free (was: Re: Why licenses *are* free)
Hi,
>>"Marcus" == Marcus Brinkmann <Marcus.Brinkmann@ruhr-uni-bochum.de> writes:
Marcus> Hello,
Marcus> On Sun, Aug 16, 1998 at 02:11:38PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Marcus> Base-files contains the GPL for the whole distribution for
Marcus> practical reasons. It can't be removed from main without
Marcus> breaking law.
>>
>> Rubbish. It can just as easily be moved to verbatim, and no
>> law is broken.
Marcus> This is not true. We are not only shipping the complete
Marcus> distribution, we are also shipping seperate
Marcus> packages. Everyone can get a single package from the ftp
Marcus> site, and is not forced to get the base-files package. So, I
Marcus> think the current situation is bad. Just because we have done
Marcus> it wrong in the past does not mean that we should do it also
Marcus> wrong (or even worse) in the future.
Where on earth do you get this from? You have already
demonstrated your lack of competence about the legal system for at
least the united states with all the balarney about licenses being
special.
For gods, sake, look at the GPL. It tells you how to apply the
GPL to your program. All you have to do is specify what the
license is, you do not have to attach a copy (the 'if not, write to
the Free Software Foundation' clause). At best, if there is already a
copy of the license o the system that is enough.
No law is broken if the license to a peice of software is not
in the software package itself. Sheeesh.
We do not ``ship'' single packages. Single packages can be dow
Marcus> As a side issue, it is also not practical to remove all
Marcus> licenses from all packages. There is not only the GPL, you
Marcus> know, there are many more. You want to remove the copyright
Marcus> notices, and this is illegal.
Liar.
Marcus> Or do you only want to remove the GPL, LGPL, BSD, and
Marcus> Artistic License? Why make exceptions for those four?
I want to apply the same priciples to all documents,
standards, licenses, etc. I never said remove the licenses. I
just said, move 'em out of main into a verbatim section.
Marcus> Still, you are confusing stand alone license documents, and
Marcus> works covered under a special license. For the first, you
Marcus> already have my support, they belong in non-free if
Marcus> immutable. The second have to be shipped with the binary
Marcus> packages, everything else is an infringement.
Nope. Not an infringement, if it already is guaranteed to be
on the system. You have no knowledge of the law, apparently.
Marcus> As long as we have GPL'ed packages, we must have a version of
Marcus> the GPL in main.
Rubbish. As long as we have /usr/doc/copyright/GPL, that is
all that is needed.
>> Nope. All that copyright law requires os that the copyright be
>> part of Debian. Not that it be included in a particular section of
>> the distribution (if the copyright law talks about Debian sections, I
>> shall be intereseted in knwoing about it)
Marcus> Yopu suggest to put them on another CD, and outside of the
Marcus> main distribution.
In verbatim, which is still part of the debian distribution.
Marcus> To be honest, I find your notion of law is disgusting. You
Marcus> don't have my support.
To be honest, you have demonstrated incometece when dealing
with legal matters, first with saying that one may copy licenses at
will (illegal), and now insisting that icenses must accompany
software (no required by the law).
You resorting to ad hominem attacjs icessantly demonstrates,
to me, your lack of maturity, and ability to hold a technical
conversation.
I also am underwhelmed by your technical competence. I think
you are creating more obstructions than anything.
The group was converging to an agreement when you come in, try
and ``prove'' things initally by yelling and opinions, and now by
inuendo and more tantrums. Frankly, I am appaled.
Marcus> So, we have to ship the license with the software in the main
Marcus> distribution.
>>
>> That des not follow. It should be in debian, yes, but not
>> necesarily in main.
Marcus> Here you say it.
>> >> Therefore, this statement is also incorrect. We can too put
>> >> the GPL in verbatim.
>>
Marcus> But we can't remove it from main, and this is my point you
Marcus> choose to ignore.
>>
>> We can too remove it from main and put it in verbatim. You
>> choose to ignore this fact too.
Marcus> And here again. We can't remove it from main. We must include
Marcus> it in the binary package. I'll put effort into this so this
Marcus> can be done with the standard licenses, too, without wasting
Marcus> disc space.
Rubish. We do not have to ship the license in the binary
package. You do not know what you are talking about. Look at the
GPL. It does nt require the GPL to be included -- all it says it that
no further restrictions can be made.
Marcus> You are speaking about stand-alone licenses.
>> >> Umm, aren't all licenses stand alone? This makes no sense.
>>
Marcus> No they are not. They apply to the work they copyright.
>>
>> The GPL, by itself does not copyright anything. Various people
>> have appled the GPL to their code. The realtionship goes the other
>> way. The GPL is stand alone. The software is not.
Marcus> One instance of the GPL is not standalone if it is applied to
Marcus> a software we ship. For a stand alone GPL package, which does
Marcus> not apply to any software (which we don't have at the
Marcus> moment), you already have my support to not let it in main.
The GPL is always standalone. Even the software is, if we
guarantee that /usr/doc/copyright/GPL exists on the machine. If not,
the software is what id dependent, not the GPL.
Marcus> No, we do not. Stand alone means we could remove them. We
Marcus> can't remove them without being illegal.
>>
>> Stand alone means we can ship the GPL alone. With nothing else
>> on the gloppy, I can ship the GPL. It stands alone.
Marcus> This is not the only meaning of stand alone. Stand alone also
Marcus> means that it can be removed.
Not in any usage of the english language. Stand alone means if
it can stand alone. If I remove it, the GPL is fine. Other documents
are also legal;it is courtesy to supply the license with the system,
and we do so. Courtesy. Anyone can obtain a copy of the GPL elsewhere
and determin what needs to be done to further distribute it.
Marcus> You can include it, or you can remove it. Both is true for
Marcus> stand alone entities. The GPL can be included, but it can't
Marcus> be removed as long as we have GPL'ed packages.
Rubbish. You do not need to nclude the GPL. It is a courtesy.
>> Now, the software is what we can't ship, so the software is
>> not stand alone.
Marcus> So you reckognize it, fine. Software and copyright license
Marcus> can only be shipped together. Not the software on one CD, and
Marcus> the copyright on another. Not the software here on the ftp
Marcus> site, and the copyright somewhere else on the ftp site.
Sure they can. (You need not even ship the GPL at all, as far
as that goes). And anyway, as long as it is in Debian., even courtesy
is satisfied.
Marcus> Together.
>> >> No more so than standards. The RFC on SMTO doies not itself
>> >> implement an smtp service, or indeed, talk about internals of a smtp
>> >> server. It is a meta docuent that talks about the interface.
>>
Marcus> We can choose not to ship a standard, but we can only choose
Marcus> to not ship a copyright if we ship nothing else, too. The
Marcus> copyright is the only thing that grants us redistribution.
Yes, the copyright grants us the roght to distribute it. But
it does not *need* to be shipped; it is courtesy that makes us do
so. And we do so by providing /usr/doc/copyright/GPL
>>
>> Sorry. If you can't stand behind your arguments, it is *YOUR*
>> problem. You put up 3 reasons why licenses are diffrent. One was
>> debatable, two others were plain wrong (as yuou admitted
>> yourself). And now you have the gall to say you proced it? Since when
>> do invalid points prove an argument?
Marcus> Yes, I conceded that the implications imposed by
Marcus> international law are too complicated to argue that
Marcus> coppyrights are modificable.
Marcus> This does not effect my points made in this and the last two mails.
It does when your points are invalid.
>> Here goes. These are essentially your arguments. Lets see how
>> you like them.
Marcus> [snipped]
Hah! Seems like they were good arguments ;-)
manoj
--
The best way to keep your friends is not to give them away.
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@acm.org> <http://www.datasync.com/%7Esrivasta/>
Key C7261095 fingerprint = CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
Reply to: