
	Where results make sense

Topic: DFSG

Related Topics

Society

Siderno

Lieksa

In the News (Sat 2 Jun 12)

EXECUTIVE POWER

Iran

ANALYSIS

Pakistan

Family compact

	debian-legal Summary of Creative Commons 2.0 Licenses
		Per DFSG 3, any licensee should be allowed to make and distribute modified versions of a work.
		DFSG 1 requires that works be freely redistributable, both publicly and privately.
		It's also incompatible with DFSG 1, which requires that licensees be allowed to sell copies of the work.
	people.debian.org /~evan/ccsummary.html (2294 words)

	Henning Makholm's DFSG rewrite attempt
		After working witht the DFSG for many years, it is a clear experience that the clauses that say, "the license must not do this" are rarely violated in practise - perhaps exactly because the DFSG calls out these restrictions explicitly.
		The present text is an exercise in writing a DFSG based on that premise.
		It is my intention that it should describe exactly the way the DFSG has actually been applied by debian-legal over the years, but it is still a very rough draft, so there may be cases I have missed.
	henning.makholm.net /debian/dfsg-bis.html (2795 words)

	Report of the First Neurodiab (Neuropathy Study Group) and Diabetic Foot Study Group (DFSG) of the EASD Joint Meeting
		The DFSG Meeting started on Thursday afternoon and ended on Saturday at noon including a Joint symposium Neurodiab/DFSG that was held on Friday afternoon.
		The DFSG meeting after the welcome and introduction by A.J.M. Boulton (UK) commenced with an oral session entitled "classification and outcomes" during which presentations, dealing mainly with problems related to foot ulcer classifications were presented.
		The poster discussion of DFSG was next on the programme: amputation, epidemiology, wound treatment, screening, assessment, surgical procedures, infection, team approach, footwear and related topics.
	www.uni-duesseldorf.de /WWW/EASD/NS/2001/April/NeurodiabReport.html (1518 words)

	Re: NEW ocaml licence proposal by upstream, will be part of the 3.08.1 release going into sarge.
		DFSG #10 enforces > > a particular interpretation of the language.
		The DFSG does not give much in > the way of guidelines to determine what restrictions are reasonable and > which are not, but that's precisely why we have long and detailed debates > about choice of law, forced distribution, invariant sections, and so on.
		If I understand correctly, you argue that DFSG #1-#9 should be interpreted in such a way to make the GPL free (because of, among other things, flamewars on -legal).
	www.talkaboutsoftware.com /group/linux.debian.legal/messages/10479.html (3042 words)

	Duchenne Family Support Group (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-10-29)
		The DFSG was started in 1987 by a small group of parents who had children diagnosed as having Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy (DMD).
		The DFSG is a national charity run by families for families affected by DMD.
		The DFSG helps bring families together for mutual support, sharing of information and experience, and social activities.
	www.dfsg.org.uk /what_is_the_dfsg.html (410 words)

	discuss@en.tldp.org (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-10-29)
		Now consider this from DFSG (actually from OSD (TM), which should be the same).
		Derived Works The license must allow modifications and derived works, and must allow them to be distributed under the same terms as the license of the original software.
		> > However, to clarify matters and be unambiguous, DFSG should state > > the rights that the license must grant to overcome the restrictions > > of copyright law.
	lists.tldp.org /index.cgi?1:mss:7707:200407:claiepedajakajhoajgg (1022 words)

	Buxy rêve tout haut » Blog Archive » More on DFSG (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-10-29)
		We probably also need to write a special documentation describing in more length the spirit in which each point of the DFSG has been written and clarify with recent history what is commonly accepted behing each buzzword (i.e.
		You think that allowing non-free “content” into main would not be compromising Debian’s principles, yet the very person who authored the DFSG is on record as saying that he intended for them to apply to everything in main.
		I was too quick in my affirmation but we could require that the “non-free content” in question respect point #1 of the DFSG which sums it up quite well (”Free redistribution”).
	www.ouaza.com /wordpress/2005/06/17/more-on-dfsg (1417 words)

	Diary for mjg59
		One thing that's often overlooked about the DFSG is that they aren't purely a list of freedoms that Debian considers necessary.
		Until the point where there is a clear consensus that the DFSG's line is drawn in the wrong place, we should reject efforts to compromise these practicalities to the same extent as we would reject efforts to compromise the freedoms that we consider so important.
		While I see the DFSG as defining a fairly straight line, others see that line as being somewhere further out to the side with clauses 4 and 10 being bulges that stick out to grab certain items that were considered strategically useful at one point.
	www.advogato.org /person/mjg59/diary.html?start=52 (3037 words)

	Buxy rêve tout haut » Blog Archive » DFSG point #8 and Mozilla Firefox
		His reasoning is that we can call it Mozilla Firefox only because we’re Debian and DFSG point #8 forbids the license to be Debian specific.
		The DFSG has been written with software license in mind and not trademark license (argument defended by Wouter Verhelst).
		His interpretation of the point #8 of the DFSG is too strict compared to the original purpose of that point (see my mail and this one from Matthew Garrett).
	www.ouaza.com /wordpress/2005/06/15/dfsg-point-8-and-mozilla-firefox (375 words)

	Documentation licensing FAQ - JacoboTarrioOrg
		This is a proposal for addition to the DFSG FAQ (http://people.debian.org/~bap/dfsg-faq.html).
		Preferrably, your proposed guidelines should be based in the DFSG to ensure that they (your proposal and the DFSG) are similar in philosophy.
		Finally, if your proposal is not shot down after several months' worth of discussion and gathers enough support, and you still want to follow through, you'll have to propose a General Resolution to amend the Social Contract, which will need 3:1 supermajority to win.
	jacobo.tarrio.org /Documentation_licensing_FAQ (973 words)

	[No title] (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-10-29)
		NoDerivs licenses ----------------- debian-legal contributors think that works licensed solely under licenses with the NoDerivs license element are not free according to the DFSG and should not be included in Debian.
		NonCommercial licenses ---------------------- debian-legal contributors think that works licensed solely under licenses with the NonCommercial license element are not free according to the DFSG and should not be included in Debian.
		In addition, Section 4b (Section 4c in the by-nc-sa 2.0) says: You may not exercise any of the rights granted to You in Section 3 above in any manner that is primarily intended for or directed toward commercial advantage or private monetary compensation.
	bad.dynu.ca /~evan/ccsummary/ccsummary.txt (2372 words)

	Bug#227159: ocaml: Worse, the QPL is not DFSG-free
		This is a fee as described by DFSG #1.
		Those to whom I give my items (presumably meaning my modifications) must be licensed to distribute modified copies without charge, and the QPL imposes a charge.
		On the other hand, perhaps my understanding of the DFSG is flawed.
	www.talkaboutsoftware.com /group/linux.debian.legal/messages/8502.html (758 words)

	GNOME/Bitstream agreement (compatible with DFSG?) - Debian Planet (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-10-29)
		But I cannot find any DFSG clause that requires that a program must be sellable all by itself.
		Debian has too many legalistically minded types: what's important is that the four freedoms the FSF talks about are protected: you can use it for any purpose, you can share it, you can modify it, you can ship your modifications, and others can build on your work.
		I suspect that the wording of DFSG #1 is because of worry about the opposite problem: people distributing software that is otherwise free but that "wants" to live on its own separate CD complete with advertising blurbs and the like.
	www.debianplanet.org /node.php?id=899 (1683 words)

	Draft new DFSG (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-10-29)
		If it's SPI, it's not unthinkable to me that there'll be updated versions of the OSD, which could might track at least some of the changes in the DFSG.
		Having the DFSG and the OSD diverge would make Open Source a lot less useful from my perspective.
		Ray -- PATRIOTISM A great British writer once said that if he had to choose between betraying his country and betraying a friend he hoped he would have the decency to betray his country.
	lists.spi-inc.org /pipermail/spi-general/1998-December/000010.html (207 words)

	Debian Free Software Guidelines (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-10-29)
		The Debian Free Software Guidelines (DFSG) are a set of guidelines that the Debian Project uses to determine whether a software license is free software license, which in turn is used to determine whether a piece of software can be included in the main, free software distribution of Debian.
		The Open Source Definition was created from the DFSG.
		When the maintainers of the individual packages first upload packages into the Debian archive, the Debian ftpmaster team evaluates the software licenses and decides whether they are in accordance with the DFSG.
	www.worldhistory.com /wiki/D/Debian-Free-Software-Guidelines.htm (576 words)

	debian-legal Summary of Creative Commons 2.0 Licenses » IM2 \| OQP (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-10-29)
		according to the DFSG and should not be included in Debian.
		DFSG 1 requires that works be freely redistributable, both publicly and
		Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 [BY-SA] are not free according to the DFSG and
	rym.waglo.com /wordpress/index.php?p=201 (1847 words)

	[No title] (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-10-29)
		Draft General Resolution: I hereby call for descussion on this draft general resolution, with which I want to decide what the Sarge release policy is to be on the DFSG related issues "GFDL documentation" and "Binary firmware".
		Rationale: - The Social Contract is changed towards the strict view that DFSG only applies to software, and to nothing else, because that's what the DFSG is intended to cover.
		It is decided that the Social Contract is to be replaced with a version
	www.wolffelaar.nl /~jeroen/gr/release_sarge_gr.txt (1055 words)

	debian-legal Summary of Creative Commons 2.0 Licenses (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-10-29)
		Our definition of "Free Software" is specified in the Debian Free Software Guidelines [DFSG].
		Note that the HTML source code for the Web page includes a comment that the trademark restrictions are "NOT A PART OF THE LICENSE".
		The relation of the trademark restrictions to the license proper is sufficiently ambiguous to make it difficult for licensees to comply.
	bad.dynu.ca /~evan/ccsummary.html (2299 words)

	Debian Free Software Guidelines (DFSG) and Software License FAQ
		I strongly believe that it conforms to the DFSG and is a free software license.
		This means that if you think you've found a loophole in the DFSG then you don't quite understand how this works.
		The DFSG is a potentially imperfect attempt to express what free software means to Debian.
	people.debian.org /~bap/dfsg-faq.html (6408 words)

	OSD && DFSG convergence
		Regardless of the merits of this proposal, I see two problems with the current DFSG.
		One is that software must comply with the DFSG to be a part of Debian, and yet the DFSG does not admit the possibility of public-domain unlicensed software.
		Another problem is that the DFSG does not prohibit a license from requiring a specific form of affirmative assent known as click-wrap.
	lists.debian.org /debian-legal-0301/msg00046.html (252 words)

	Help for convincing authors of non-DFSG free documentation
		The main idea of this request for help is that maintainers of all these packages which are concerned try all on their own to convince authors to change their license.
		But many of these authors do not really understand all these DFSG - GFDL issues.
		The main idea of this request for help is that maintainers of > all these packages which are concerned try all on their own to convince > authors to change their license.
	www.webservertalk.com /message360583.html (842 words)

	Encyclopedia: Debian (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-10-29)
		The Debian Social Contract is a document framing the core moral agenda of the Debian Project.
		An umbrella organization is an association of (often related, industry specific) institutions, who work together formally to coordinate activities or pool resources.
		The Open Source Definition is used by the Open Source Initiative to determine whether or not a software license can be considered open source.
	www.nationmaster.com /encyclopedia/Debian (5833 words)

	dfsg compliant X
		Posted: Thu May 13, 2004 2:46 am Post subject: dfsg compliant X
		Posted: Fri May 14, 2004 12:46 am Post subject: Re: dfsg compliant X
		I decided to test the new X dfsg packages on one of my Testing
	www.w00tlinux.com /bb/ftopic28308.html (121 words)

	Onion Routing -- Facts, Info, and Encyclopedia article (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-10-29)
		Reply Onions have been replaced by a Rendezvous system, allowing hidden services such as (you need Tor to access this page).
		The Tor source code is published under a (additional info and facts about DFSG) DFSG free license, and as of February 2005, there are.
		See the (additional info and facts about Tor article) Tor article for more information.
	www.absoluteastronomy.com /encyclopedia/o/on/onion_routing.htm (1227 words)

	The TeX Catalogue License Definitions: DFSG (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-10-29)
		This software is distributed under a license that conforms to the Debian Free Software Guidelines but might not use one of the common DFSG conforming licenses (GPL, LPPL, PD).
		General permission to copy, distribute, and modify the software will apply, but there may be other (compatible) conditions.
		Please check the software's license before using the software.
	www.tex.ac.uk /CTAN/help/Catalogue/licenses.dfsg.html (56 words)

	Slashdot \| Debian Can Now Amend Social Contract, DFSG
		Debian has been working on productive discussions with the FSF over the GFDL for over two years, and this change is a direct result from those discussions.
		Most Debian Developers feel that documentation qualifies as software, and should be included under the DFSG as well.
		Everything in Gentoo's Social contract is basically directly lifted from Debian's, although they decided not to take it all.
	developers.slashdot.org /developers/03/10/30/1618243.shtml?tid=185&tid=90 (6071 words)

	Debian Social Contract
		Debian, the producers of the Debian GNU/Linux system, have created the Debian Social Contract.
		The Debian Free Software Guidelines (DFSG) part of the contract, initially designed as a set of commitments that we agree to abide by, has been adopted by the free software community as the basis of the Open Source Definition.
		We provide the guidelines that we use to determine if a work is "free" in the document entitled "
	www.debian.org /social_contract (984 words)

	Re: Is the GNU FDL a DFSG-free license?
		So, no text from a document licensed under the GFDL which contained an invariant section could be included in an encyclopedia, since the invariant section would now be part of the "main" discussion.
		Hence, the GFDL restricts a document from being used in the "specific field of endevour" of encyclopedia making, failing DFSG 6.
		(Just thought I'd try and add another section of the DFSG that GFDL fails...)
	lists.debian.org /debian-legal/2003/08/msg00691.html (356 words)

Try your search on: Qwika (all wikis)