Fabian Fagerholm | 1 May 14:01 2007
Picon

Re: Request for GR: clarifying the license text licensing / freeness issue

On Sun, 2007-04-29 at 09:25 -0700, Ken Arromdee wrote:
> I still don't see the problem.
> 
> First of all, the interpretation we wish to claim consistency under is "all
> bits that are distributed by Debian must follow the DFSG".  Copyright law is
> not distributed by Debian, and needs no exception.

Neither do licenses, which are distributed because of necessity, are
extensions (or applications, if you will) of copyright law, and must be
taken as such, like the SC and DFSG do.

> Second, what will happen in practice is that there will be text that is so
> short and functional that it can't be copyrighted.  Example: package is under
> the GPL.  The FSF then says "you can reuse the text of the GPL as long as
> you change the name".
> 
> There's no infinite regress, because "you can reuse the text of the GPL as
> long as you change the name" isn't copyrightable.

This is just one of many possible cases. Someone might want copyleft
terms for their meta-license, and might end up with a license that is
copyrightable, which then in turn needs a license. We can't anticipate
all cases, but your example is no more likely than the next.

Anyway, we're already far beyond what is "practical" and although this
has been interesting for me because I've had the chance to dig a bit
deeper into these documents and concepts, I feel that we're already
"outside the meeting room, discussing in the corridor, lights are being
shut off, everyone else has gone home and the janitor is rattling with
his keychain and giving us meaningful looks as he's making his final
(Continue reading)

Ken Arromdee | 1 May 16:53 2007
Picon
Picon

Re: Request for GR: clarifying the license text licensing / freeness issue

On Tue, 1 May 2007, Fabian Fagerholm wrote:
> > First of all, the interpretation we wish to claim consistency under is "all
> > bits that are distributed by Debian must follow the DFSG".  Copyright law is
> > not distributed by Debian, and needs no exception.
> Neither do licenses, which are distributed because of necessity,

Something that is distributed by necessity is still distributed.

Copyright law is actually *not distributed* by Debian.  We don't have a text
file which says "Current Copyright Law" and which includes excerpts from legal
codes and judges' decisions.

Michelle Konzack | 4 May 17:11 2007
Picon

Re: Question for Sam Hocevar "xxx xxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxx xx xxxxxxx"

Am 2007-04-30 04:20:07, schrieb Matthew Garrett:
> I did read that, but it doesn't seem to answer my question. You denied 
> being a member, but you've had an email address and were an operator on 
> their IRC channel. How are you actually defining "member"?

I have an E-Mail in the domain <gov.fr> now I am the hidden
"President of France" or my E-Mail from the "Ministry of Defense"
where I am "Commander en Chef" or what?

I know many peoples with strange looking E-Mails but this
does not mean...

Thanks, Greetings and nice Day
    Michelle Konzack
    Systemadministrator
    Tamay Dogan Network
    Debian GNU/Linux Consultant

--

-- 
Linux-User #280138 with the Linux Counter, http://counter.li.org/
##################### Debian GNU/Linux Consultant #####################
Michelle Konzack   Apt. 917                  ICQ #328449886
                   50, rue de Soultz         MSN LinuxMichi
0033/6/61925193    67100 Strasbourg/France   IRC #Debian (irc.icq.com)
Matthew Garrett | 4 May 18:24 2007
Picon

Re: Question for Sam Hocevar "xxx xxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxx xx xxxxxxx"

Michelle Konzack <linux4michelle <at> freenet.de> wrote:

> I have an E-Mail in the domain <gov.fr> now I am the hidden
> "President of France" or my E-Mail from the "Ministry of Defense"
> where I am "Commander en Chef" or what?

No, but it seems like a reasonably safe bet that you've worked for them 
at some point.

--

-- 
Matthew Garrett | mjg59-chiark.mail.debian.vote <at> srcf.ucam.org

Craig Sanders | 5 May 02:24 2007
Picon
Picon

Re: Question for Sam Hocevar "xxx xxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxx xx xxxxxxx"

On Fri, May 04, 2007 at 05:24:16PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Michelle Konzack <linux4michelle <at> freenet.de> wrote:
> 
> > I have an E-Mail in the domain <gov.fr> now I am the hidden
> > "President of France" or my E-Mail from the "Ministry of Defense"
> > where I am "Commander en Chef" or what?
> 
> No, but it seems like a reasonably safe bet that you've worked for them 
> at some point.

in the end, though, who cares?

in his younger days, he may or may not have been a member of a juvenile
parody organisation whose purpose was to shock and annoy people with
over-the-top and deliberately offensive crudity. big deal. the major
part of the reason for them doing it is to hear the outraged squawks of
those who are offended by it - the more attention and fuss it gets, the
bigger the joke. the best thing to do is to just ignore it. or dismiss
it contemptuously. taking it seriously is the worst thing you could do,
it's what they want and it just inspires them to even lower depths.

anyway, lots of people do shit like that when they're young and stupid
teenagers. they think it's funny. or rebellious. or something. most of
them grow out of it when they eventually realise it doesn't make them
look "cool", it makes them look like anxious little boys trying to act
cool. which is what they are.

if he wants to move on and grow up and put it behind him, let him. it's
not like a stupid parody organisation actually harms anyone or anything.

(Continue reading)

Don Armstrong | 5 May 03:02 2007
Picon

Re: Question for Sam Hocevar "xxx xxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxx xx xxxxxxx"

On Sat, 05 May 2007, Craig Sanders wrote:
> if he wants to move on and grow up and put it behind him, let him.
> it's not like a stupid parody organisation actually harms anyone or
> anything.

Except that most "parody organizations" don't have a long history of
attacking Debian-associated IRC channels and operators within them,
coupled with anti-feminism/anti-semitic/anti-homosexual rhetoric.

Regardless, I'm personally more concerned by the appearance that
people who asked this question of Sam before voting were lied to than
the nature of a ill-conceived group of trolls. I don't know if Mathew
Garrett's allegations are true or not, but their implications for the
trustworthiness of our DPL if true are troubling.

Don Armstrong

--

-- 
No amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free
[...] You can't conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him.
 -- Robert Heinlein _Revolt in 2010_ p54

http://www.donarmstrong.com              http://rzlab.ucr.edu

Steve Langasek | 5 May 03:06 2007
Picon

Re: Question for Sam Hocevar "xxx xxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxx xx xxxxxxx"

On Sat, May 05, 2007 at 10:24:16AM +1000, Craig Sanders wrote:
> if he wants to move on and grow up and put it behind him, let him. it's
> not like a stupid parody organisation actually harms anyone or anything.

I beg to differ.  The GNAA have a long history of mounting campaigns of
*disruption* against on-line communities.  That is not the work of a "parody
organization".

> PS: some people deserve to be offended. those who get outraged by
> moronic parody crap are amongst them.

It is the lack of respect for others' property that makes graffiti a crime,
not the content.

--

-- 
Steve Langasek                   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer                   to set it on, and I can move the world.
vorlon <at> debian.org                                   http://www.debian.org/

Craig Sanders | 5 May 04:04 2007
Picon
Picon

Re: Question for Sam Hocevar "xxx xxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxx xx xxxxxxx"

On Fri, May 04, 2007 at 06:06:18PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Sat, May 05, 2007 at 10:24:16AM +1000, Craig Sanders wrote:
> > if he wants to move on and grow up and put it behind him, let him. it's
> > not like a stupid parody organisation actually harms anyone or anything.
> 
> I beg to differ.  The GNAA have a long history of mounting campaigns of
> *disruption* against on-line communities.  

ooh. disruption.  they must be terrorists.  shoot them all.

> That is not the work of a "parody organization".

yes, it is. disruption and causing a big fuss has long been the purpose
of parody groups.

it's also why stupid troll groups exist. the more annoyance they cause,
the bigger the fuss, the more successful they think they are. by
treating them seriously, you're just feeding them.

craig

ps: i didn't vote for the guy, i am unlikely to ever vote for him. but
what's done is done. let him get on with it and judge him on what he
does now rather than on stupid juvenile shit he did (or probably did -
i don't know for sure and i don't care) years ago. 

it's not as if it matters much - the DPL never does anything important
(the cabal makes sure of that), no matter what grand promises they make
in their election platforms. people go along with them if they like
their plans and ignore them if they don't. same as ever.
(Continue reading)

Steve Langasek | 5 May 05:42 2007
Picon

Re: Question for Sam Hocevar "xxx xxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxx xx xxxxxxx"

On Sat, May 05, 2007 at 12:04:25PM +1000, Craig Sanders wrote:
> On Fri, May 04, 2007 at 06:06:18PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > On Sat, May 05, 2007 at 10:24:16AM +1000, Craig Sanders wrote:
> > > if he wants to move on and grow up and put it behind him, let him. it's
> > > not like a stupid parody organisation actually harms anyone or anything.

> > I beg to differ.  The GNAA have a long history of mounting campaigns of
> > *disruption* against on-line communities.  

> ooh. disruption.  they must be terrorists.  shoot them all.

Haha, you got me.  I see that I have been trolled by the Craig Sanders
Association of Australia, sister organization to the GNAA.

Ah well, fool me once...

--

-- 
Steve Langasek                   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer                   to set it on, and I can move the world.
vorlon <at> debian.org                                   http://www.debian.org/

Sven Luther | 5 May 07:10 2007
Picon

Re: Question for Sam Hocevar "xxx xxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxx xx xxxxxxx"

On Fri, May 04, 2007 at 06:02:47PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Sat, 05 May 2007, Craig Sanders wrote:
> > if he wants to move on and grow up and put it behind him, let him.
> > it's not like a stupid parody organisation actually harms anyone or
> > anything.
> 
> Except that most "parody organizations" don't have a long history of
> attacking Debian-associated IRC channels and operators within them,
> coupled with anti-feminism/anti-semitic/anti-homosexual rhetoric.
> 
> Regardless, I'm personally more concerned by the appearance that
> people who asked this question of Sam before voting were lied to than
> the nature of a ill-conceived group of trolls. I don't know if Mathew
> Garrett's allegations are true or not, but their implications for the
> trustworthiness of our DPL if true are troubling.

Well, he would not be the first DPL who had an honestity problem, just
look at the manipulative lies of our previous DPL. 

But again, i fear that the people bringing this always to the front, are
not really interested in the best of debian, but in mafioso like
politics, which is something really disgusting.

Saddened,

Sven LUther


Gmane