[Ichthux-devel] Penguin in the Pew Available

[Troy A. Griffitts]

Ben,
	Just a quick note.  Thanks for the kind response.  You make a good 
point about the box that might get opened and that it's easier to just 
say, this is the line.  Thanks for the reply

Ben Armstrong wrote:
> On 5/4/05, Troy A. Griffitts <scribe at crosswire.org> wrote:
> 
>>I don't think the logic of this statement holds.  I could easily make a
>>license that stated that electronic encoding updates and errors found to
>>not match a printed edition could be made to a text I develop.  I'm sure
>>I could make this license also not be DFSG-free in your eyes.
> 
> 
> Fair enough.  It's also incidental to the main thrust of my argument,
> which is that the DFSG  applying to the whole work of Debian
> simplifies things greatly.  Nobody has come up with a proposal for how
> documents should be treated differently that actually works.  It isn't
> easy.
> 
> 
>>> If the text wasn't DFSG-free, the errors could not have been corrected.
>>
>>Thus, the text wasn't DFSG-free, and the errors COULD be corrected.
> 
> 
> OK.
> 
> 
>>You are limiting my freedom as to what I can include with my software,
>>not enhancing it.  VI states that you must include their unchanged page
>>for helping children in Uganda-- many people write software for causes
>>other than the empty promises of Marxism.  If you tell me I CAN'T
>>included my opinion article with my software, then you are limiting my
>>purpose and freedom for writing software.  It's absurb to mandate
>>software distribution principles on published opinions.  These
>>businesses have different and somtimes conflicting needs.
> 
> 
> ITYM Vim.  Yes, that has caused problems in the past (search
> debian-legal archives re. Vim using google for background info).  I
> don't think Debian objects to that sort of non-modifiable text, which
> properly belongs as an addendum to the "copyright" document.  It is
> accepted that licenses themselves, to hold any meaning, must be
> non-modifiable.  The problem is when the actual content, not just the
> license, is non-modifiable.
> 
> 
>>If you would allow me to include my personal purpose statement with my
>>software, and still publish it on a Debian CD, then why is there a
>>problem including PitP on the Debian CD.  This was my only point.
> 
> 
> We'd have to go over with debian-legal the objections they have to the
> CC license you chose.  If you could license it "CC + whatever
> modifications to CC make it acceptable to debian-legal" we wouldn't
> have a problem on our hands.  The problem is that the non-free
> licenses that are problematic open holes in the DFSG that would set
> dangerous precedents for future packages.  So even if the *spirit* of
> the DFSG is upheld by your work, acceptance of the work under its
> current license causes problems.
> 
> 
>>Thanks for the interaction.  I enjoy exploring these principles _on
>>occasion_.
> 
> 
> I don't mind exploring them from time to time.  I recognize it is a
> big headache, though, for many people.  Licenses are like computer
> languages, it seems: they are necessary evils we have to use in spite
> of their flaws, and we're always irritated by those flaws and are on
> the lookout for better ones.
> 
> Ben
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Ichthux-devel mailing list
> Ichthux-devel at crosswire.org
> http://www.crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/ichthux-devel