[Ichthux-devel] Penguin in the Pew Available
Troy A. Griffitts
scribe at crosswire.org
Thu May 5 16:39:09 MST 2005
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
More information about the Ichthux-devel
mailing list