[linux-elitists] RMS is at it again
Fri Dec 1 19:48:46 PST 2000
on Fri, Dec 01, 2000 at 03:11:41PM -0800, Heather (firstname.lastname@example.org) wrote:
> Read again - I suggest that they point to a debian-maintained copy AND
> refer to the FSF. One further assumes that the reference to the copy
> held at the FSF shouldn't be necessary if you *have* the local copy (as
> you should) ... but you could refer to both and compare them.
> > (c). and give any other recipients of the Program a copy of this
> > License along with the Program.
> > The _ issue is (c).
> right, the present layout assumes that having Base is giving you a copy of
> said License.
> > The issue isn't one of finding an appropriate license, it's accommodating
> > the requirements of the GNU GPL.
> Or discovering that too deep a hole is being dug regarding it 8(
> > > Anyways the Debian gang are among the FSF's boosters for the most
> > > part, so what I really wonder, is who told off RMS such that he
> > > decided to have a public tantrum.
> > My observation is that RMS tends to walk a rather straight line.
> > There's a potential GPL issue. He's addressing it.
> My observation is that he goes off like this on issues, after discovering
> them in heated conversation with others.
Tantrum or otherwise, his reasoning and line are consistant.
> > Looking to alternatives, one might be to work out a way that:
> > 1. Doesn't put the overhead of transferring and storing copies of the
> > GPL on people who are receiving programs through the Debian
> > packaging system -- e.g.: they've already got the license as part
> > of the base system. GPL *is a fundamental part* of Debian.
> > 2. Does transfer a copy, or indicate that the user must download an
> > additional file, for those who are downloading debs independently.
> > The question IMO is whether or not "a work" is defined as:
> > 1. Debian as a whole. In which case, we're compliant.
> > 2. An individual archive file. In which case, we're not, and the
> > solution is to add a copy of the L/GPL explicitly to each .deb
> > governed by the L/GPL.
> > 3. A set of files, not necessarily integrally combined. In which
> > case, a social and procedural, but not technical, fix is possible.
> > In the event of automated downloads, the tools will ensure that
> > individuals have a copy of the L/GPL. In the event of manual
> > downloads, the recipient is directed to download a copy of the the
> > L/GPL, but the Debian project can't be held accountable for this
> > noncompliance.
> I can hope for 3, because then my suggestion of a clear (but short)
> notice and a dependency on a package GPL-version-2 or
> GPL-version-2plus, etc. would be fine. And easy to do in the small
> scale, though a pain to do to every package til the pot's right...
> > The problem isn't Debian CDs and live-system updates, it's individual
> > .deb distributions. Agreement on that?
> I suppose this is why I am being most snippy about it - I'm directly in the
> affected group.
Expand again: You're in this group because:
(a) You're downloading .debs over the net with apt-get
(b) You're using individual .debs as part of other projects on
non-Debian distributions or installations?
If the first, I'd make the argument that you're pulling down componenets
of a work within a framework that assures you've already got the
license(s) on the system, and will get them for you if you don't.
If the second, well, I hope my option (3) will stand.
> > IANAL, this is not legal advice.
> As a curiosity: Anyone have a database somewhere of apps by license?
...drill down and you'll find that this is a software map browser by
I also assume that the vrms package has some way of determining that a
package is in free or non-free.
However, my experience in crawling through /usr/doc/*/copyright a few
weeks back was that there is a strongly pronounced lack of consistancy
about how project copyrights are reported. Anything from a
straightforward presentation to a detailed list of contact attempts with
original authors and/or transcripts of conversations or email.
It would be useful to tie this data to the popularity test though....
Karsten M. Self <email@example.com> http://www.netcom.com/~kmself
Evangelist, Zelerate, Inc. http://www.zelerate.org
What part of "Gestalt" don't you understand? There is no K5 cabal
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 232 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://allium.zgp.org/pipermail/linux-elitists/attachments/20001201/3e9fc431/attachment.pgp
More information about the linux-elitists