MJ Ray <m...@phonecoop.coop> writes: > Think of them as two parallel developments for similar concepts - > one is a definition, the other is a set of guidelines to follow. > Like http://people.debian.org/~bap/dfsg-faq#four_freedoms says: > > "[the FSF's four freedoms] are the Free Software Foundation's > articulation of what it believes all software users deserve. (Note > that full exercise of Freedoms 1 and 3 requires access to the > source code.) They are elegantly phrased, and arguably an > improvement in some ways on the earlier DFSG. However they refer > to exactly the same set of freedoms as the DFSG. If a license is > inconsistent with the FSF's four freedoms, you can be sure that > Debian will also consider it non-free."
Right. Note well the subtlety in choosing the words. The above FAQ does *not* say “If the FSF considers a work non-free …”; rather, it says “If a license is inconsistent with the FSF's four freedoms …”. This determination then doesn't depend solely on FSF policy. Remember that the FSF chooses to apply different guidelines to different software works. They divide software works into exclusive categories by interpretation such as “program” (what the FSF calls “software”), “artistic work”, “program documentation”, “work of opinion”, etc.[0], and further imply that the one true category of interpretation for a work is to be determined by the copyright holder at the time of licensing the work, not by any of its recipients at the times they use it. Based on what the copyright holder considers to be the one true interpretation for a work, the FSF considers its recipients deserve different freedoms[1]. This without regard for whether any recipients might choose to interpret the work differently from the copyright holder. The FSF only considers works of software that copyright holders deem to be programs (what the FSF means by the term “software”) for its Free Software Definition. This is why they don't see an inconsistency in their promotion of the non-free FDL. They consider that if a work's copyright holder deems that a work is to be interpreted only as documentation, no recipients need the four freedoms of the FSD for that work. [0]: <URL:https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html> [1]: <URL:http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/08/msg00807.html> [2]: <URL:http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/09/msg01221.html> The Debian Project's social contract (§1, “Debian will remain 100% free”) requires that the DFSG applies to all works of software in Debian (“the Debian system and all its components”). This application of the guidelines is without limitation by what the copyright holders say about the interpretation of the work and without limitation on how any of its recipients will choose to interpret the work in any instance. So this is why the FSF might consider a work free (because it is not deemed to be a program, so they don't apply the FSD), while the Debian Project might consider the same work non-free (because regardless of whether it's interpreted as a program, its recipients must have exercise of the DFSG freedoms). The two definitions of software freedom are compatible. What is incompatible is who gets to determine the set of works for which those freedoms should be considered. The FSF says the copyright holders get to determine which works's recipients deserve the four freedoms; the Debian Project says all works in Debian must have freedom for all recipients of those works. -- \ “When I was a baby I kept a diary. Recently I was re-reading | `\ it, it said ‘Day 1: Still tired from the move. Day 2: Everybody | _o__) talks to me like I'm an idiot.’” —Steven Wright | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87ehpkx7r7....@benfinney.id.au
