This is the recent traffic on the #SPF-council IRC channel on irc.pobox.com. Anyone may join the channel, but only council members can talk.
If you do not have access to IRC, you may view the recent traffic at: http://www.schlitt.net/spf/spf-council/now/irc_log.html.
This log can be can be viewed at: http://www.schlitt.net/spf/spf-council/2006/08/12_irc_log.html.
IRC nicknames:
| Julian | Julian Mehnle |
| MarkK | Mark Kramer (asarian-host.net) |
| SDGathman | Stuart Gathman |
| shew | Mark Shewmaker |
| willix | William Leibzon |
| freeside | Meng Weng Wong |
| gconnor | Greg Connor |
| grumpy | Wayne Schlitt |
| --- Sat Aug 12 16:36:49 UTC 2006 --- | ||
| 16:36 | <Julian> | Hum hom. |
| 16:53 | <shew> | Oops. |
| 16:53 | <shew> | Late on the informal meeting. sigh. |
| 16:53 | <Julian> | Naw, not yet. |
| 16:53 | <Julian> | T = -7min |
| 16:53 | <shew> | Oh. |
| 16:53 | <shew> | I had the times wrong then. |
| 16:54 | <shew> | I actually only now remembered it. :-/ |
| 16:59 | <Julian> | Honestly, I don't expect _both_ of William and Stuart to show up today, not speaking of MarkK (whom I've tried to call earlier today, but his number was busy). |
| 17:08 | <willix> | need to reset term, will be back |
| 17:11 | <Julian> | hi willix |
| 17:11 | <willix> | hi |
| 17:11 | <willix> | sorry, I'm a bit late |
| 17:11 | <Julian> | willix: Thanks for your ietf-dkim summary! |
| 17:11 | <willix> | wasn't me |
| 17:11 | <Julian> | Oops, I think I'm confused. |
| 17:11 | <willix> | I decided that Scott & Hector responses were enough |
| 17:12 | <Julian> | No worries about being late, Stuart isn't here yet. |
| 17:12 | <Julian> | Yeah, it was Hector... (and Frank and Scott) |
| 17:19 | <Julian> | Well, we can talk informally. |
| 17:19 | <Julian> | Any news? |
| 17:20 | <willix> | news in what way? |
| 17:20 | <Julian> | Interesting news. Significant news. Related to SPF. |
| 17:21 | <Julian> | Myself, I've been pretty busy with real life the past week. The most I accomplished is a formal Relax-NG schema for the test suite. |
| 17:21 | <Julian> | I have yet to write a YAML-to-XML converter, then I think we can check the existing test suite data for schema validity and proceed from there. |
| 17:22 | <Julian> | I'm still hacking on Mail::SPF, too. Should be done in 2-3 weeks. |
| 17:47 | <willix> | Since we probably will not have a meeting I informally wanted to ask about something else |
| 17:48 | <willix> | I'm soon going to update/wikify my Email Security Glossary |
| 17:48 | <willix> | I'd be willing to make it available under GNU documentation license and have it on SPF website |
| 17:49 | <willix> | however I'd still retain copyright - which is different then other parts of SPF website right now |
| 17:49 | <Julian> | I think that ought to be possible. |
| 17:50 | <willix> | BTW - the glossary right now (if you dont remember) is at http://www.metasignatures.org/glossary.htm |
| 17:50 | <Julian> | You always have copyright on anything you write (except if you release stuff into the public domain). |
| 17:50 | <willix> | It would be made available at 2 of my website with both using wiki (but not the same wiki package you have on openspf) |
| 17:51 | <willix> | Current OpenSPF website conviniently does not mention it... |
| 17:51 | <Julian> | BTW, the SPF website doesn't state any copyright right now. |
| 17:51 | <Julian> | Yeah. |
| 17:51 | <willix> | My understanding when doing something on that website was always is that its basicly going into public domain |
| 17:51 | <Julian> | No. |
| 17:51 | <Julian> | Definitely not. |
| 17:52 | <shew> | The debian folks have some problems with GFDL. |
| 17:52 | <Julian> | That's why the SPF website uses the GPL, not the GFDL. |
| 17:52 | <Julian> | "Unless noted otherwise, all content on this website is dual-licensed under the GNU GPL v2 and the Creative Commons CC BY-SA 2.5." |
| 17:52 | <shew> | Cool. |
| 17:52 | <willix> | Ok, then its issue we need to discuss. If its not public domain then who? If SPF had legal entity it would be more clear... |
| 17:53 | <Julian> | It's copyright by whoever wrote the stuff. |
| 17:53 | <Julian> | See the revision history. |
| 17:54 | <Julian> | The parts that have been taken verbatim (or almost verbatim) from the old site is (C) Meng or the IC Group. |
| 17:55 | <willix> | Yes, that I know. What about new site, basicly its copyright by multiple people who worked on it as you say? |
| 17:55 | <Julian> | Yes. |
| 17:56 | <willix> | Wierd for documentation, but I guess that's what we have with open-source packages |
| 17:56 | <Julian> | We could transfer copyright to a legal entity if we had one. |
| 17:57 | <Julian> | The problem with GFDL is invariant sections. |
| 17:57 | <willix> | explain |
| 17:57 | <Julian> | GFDL is DFSG-free as long as there are no invariant sections. |
| 17:57 | <Julian> | (DFSG = Debian Free Software Guidelines) |
| 17:58 | <Julian> | An invariant section is like, "you may distribute this text as long as you don't remove or modify chapter X". |
| 17:58 | <Julian> | As soon as there's an invariant section, Debian considers it non-free. |
| 18:01 | <willix> | Its still free, it just may no longer be open-source in the same way as GNU |
| 18:01 | <shew> | See http://people.debian.org/~srivasta/Position_Statement.xhtml |
| 18:01 | <shew> | and http://www.debian.org/vote/2006/vote_001 |
| 18:02 | <shew> | The first goes into GFDL problems/issues in more detail, and the second was the debian vote on the subject. |
| 18:02 | <Julian> | I was going to pull out those links, too. Thanks, shew. |
| 18:04 | <shew> | Welcome. :-) |
| 18:08 | <willix> | I've read it and some of the things Debian has problems with is exactly the reason why I find GFDL accepable |
| 18:09 | <willix> | for this particular glossary that is |
| 18:09 | <Julian> | You mean you want one or more invariant sections? |
| 18:09 | <shew> | Such as? |
| 18:10 | <willix> | DRM copies and copies in other forms without clear indication of source I don't want |
| 18:11 | <willix> | I've already had a problem where somebody came in took my glossary made some modifications (keeping over 80% of original) and then sold it to 2 other companies as their own |
| 18:12 | <Julian> | The GFDL's DRM clause really is weird. I agree with Debian on that. Even if I put the free source on my webserver for everyone to download freely, I would still be forbidden to hand out DRM-enabled e-books with the text. |
| 18:12 | <Julian> | Well, if you don't like others selling your stuff, then don't license it under the GFDL, GPL, or any other "free" license. |
| 18:13 | <Julian> | Generally all those licenses allow that sort of thing. |
| 18:13 | <Julian> | If someone else is stupid enough to pay for what they could get for free, that's their problem. |
| 18:13 | <willix> | Without any attribution to the author or having his name under copyright? |
| 18:13 | <shew> | None of the Open Source licenses would allow someone to sell your work as their own. |
| 18:13 | <Julian> | No, of course not _without_ attribution. |
| 18:13 | <Julian> | You can sue them for omitting the attribution. |
| 18:13 | <shew> | Right. |
| 18:14 | <shew> | BTW, this conversation doesn't need to be on spf-council.. |
| 18:14 | <Julian> | Feel free to move it to #spf :-) |
| 18:14 | <willix> | In the end they modified distribution and added my name as co-author and agreed not to distribute it or modify it further |
| 18:15 | <willix> | Though I was not satisfied how it all happened at all |
| 18:15 | <willix> | I know |
| 18:15 | <willix> | about it not having to be on spf-council |
| 18:15 | <shew> | join #spf. :-) |
| 18:16 | <willix> | I actually don't remember any more how to join a channel in bitchx and leave myself in another channel |
| 18:17 | <Julian> | /join #spf |
| 18:17 | <willix> | since its one window, I'd leave spf-council |
| 18:17 | <Julian> | Oh... I have little idea about how BitchX works. |
| 18:18 | <willix> | text-only unix terminal irc client you know |
| 18:19 | <willix> | anyway I'll think about all this more but in the end I'll probably ask again if SPF Project wants this and I probably will want it under GFDL and not GPL |
| 18:19 | <Julian> | Oh. I thought it had something to do with X(11)... guess I was wrong. |
| 18:19 | <shew> | Then I'll cut&paste my question to you on #spf here: |
| 18:19 | <shew> | Did you agree to that too, Willix? That if they did that you wouldn't pursue things further? |
| 18:20 | <shew> | (Agreeging with them that them not distributing the work further was enough.) |
| 18:20 | <willix> | As long as it is under the same GFDL license |
| 18:21 | <shew> | What does the GFDL itself get you? |
| 18:21 | <shew> | I haven't understood that part of things from the conversation so far. |
| 18:22 | <Julian> | The GFDL is like cast<text_not_software>(GPL), just with some additional weird bits like invariant sections and "not on DRM-enabled media, ever!". |
| 18:23 | <Julian> | I never really understood the difference between text and software, though. |
| 18:23 | <Julian> | #!/usr/bin/mozilla |
| 18:23 | <Julian> | <html> |
| 18:23 | <Julian> | ... |
| 18:23 | <Julian> | -- |
| 18:23 | <Julian> | chmod +x foo.html |
| 18:23 | <Julian> | ./foo.html |
| 18:23 | <Julian> | q.e.d. |
| 18:24 | <willix> | I'll join #spf - I don't think anything will happen here today... |
| 18:24 | <shew> | I didn't ask that clearly. What is Willix wanting that the GFDL provides him but GPD or other open source licenses does not. The bit about someone having stolen his previous works isn't a licensing issue, but a copyright infringement issue that he decided not to pursue apparently. |
| 18:24 | <shew> | ok |