On 21/07/13 13:22, Ben Finney wrote: > Adam Bolte <abo...@systemsaviour.com> writes: >> Given that the Debian project rejects the GNU Free Documentation >> License from main - a stance which I strongly disagree with > > I'm surprised by that. Both because that gets the facts wrong, and > because you support the non-free FDL.
What facts are those? I'm simply implying that analogies can be drawn? > The FDL is not a free license: it contains restrictions on modification > and redistribution that violate the four freedoms. "The four freedoms" relate to software. The 'D' in FDL is "Documentation". If I had not spelt this out already in my previous post, I would have thought you were confused with something else. There is no "need to have freedom to study how the documentation works" for a plain text file, for example. I have no problems with reading books where copyright prevents me from redistributed modified copies, etc - which is the case with the vast majority of books that can be purchased from stores and online. Documentation for a free software program is clearly a bit different - software often requires good documentation to be useful. If you modify a program that changes user behaviour (for example), it makes sense that you will also want to change the end user documentation. This freedom is clearly provided for within the FDL. There are optional non-variant secondary sections, but it is explicitly stated in the licence that a non-variant section must not cover the content matter. (Also note that it is the Debian Free Software Guidelines that are generally used as the reason to reject it from the Debian distribution - even though documentation is not software!) Having free software has logical reasoning behind it. I don't see any logic to demanding the removal of non-variant sections when these don't pose any practical problems or challenges to utilising software associated with it. There is no hindrance in anything I could imagine wanting to use documentation for if licensed under FDL - where there might be for other licenses. > So any software work > (using the full meaning of “software”, i.e. any digitally-encoded > information) licensed under the FDL is not a free work. The name “Free > Documentation License” is thereby a misnomer. Your definition of software is wrong, and so explains the reasoning of your objections. From Wikipedia, (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software): "Computer software, or just software, is any set of machine-readable instructions (most often in the form of a computer program) that directs a computer's processor to perform specific operations." I wouldn't define music or video as software either, for the same reasons - even though these are commonly distributed on CD or DVD. > The FSF's official position is that the four freedoms only apply to > programs, despite the fact that this is dictating how a work will be > used by the recipient and choosing what freedoms they deserve. Assuming by "work" you mean "software", you will have to give me an example of an actual problem (or inconvenience, even) that has been caused by documentation using invariant sections as defined in the FDL as a demonstration of why this is a problem. I don't care for the whole "I want all rights to do anything I want to anything and everything on my hard drive just for the sake of it" attitude some people have - I need to see logical arguments behind the motivation. Free software has a clear argument - I think back to the printer problem RMS had at MIT, and consider all the things that could stand in the way of RMS writing a driver to operate the device the way that he wanted. Secondary non-variant sections of software documentation just doesn't make the list. Perhaps now you also understand more clearly the analogy I was making to trademarks. Trademarks are being considered by the Debian project, even though by your own reasoning (that Wikipedia and I disagree with) they must be considered as software to be included in the Debian distribution. If they are software, then it has to adhere to the DFSG, yes? Clearly trademarks do not - they fail "no discrimination against fields of endeavor, like commercial use" for example - but yet the DFSG is happy to turn a blind eye to that. It is a clear contradiction. > But the way a software work is used doesn't change what freedoms the > recipient deserves. A PDF is a program *and* a document; a font is a > program *and* a data file; many programs contain documentation, and vice > versa. Moreover, there's no justification for the copyright holder to > dictate how any recipient will interpret the data stream, in order to > deny some freedoms on that basis. Firstly, I disagree with your assessments here. Modern PDFs can include JavaScript, although it's probably a stretch to call a PDF a software program in general. Fonts are definitely not a software program, although some software and document files such as PDFs may optionally include them. Secondly, different fonts generally provide an aesthetic (rather than functional) purpose, and do not limit the ability to read text. I can not see how not having a specific font hinders my ability to use a free software computer program. One can use Liberation fonts instead of Microsoft's Core Fonts without any practical impact, for example. Thirdly, the FDL covers documentation, as in the text - not the way the file is presented (except going so far as to ensure the text will be distributed in a readable "transparent" format). I consider this restriction to be a good thing (see below). > The Debian project had a long debate on this in the first half of the > previous decade. The resolution of the project in 2006-03 > <URL:http://www.debian.org/News/2006/20060316> is that works are free > under the FDL *only* if the license grant doesn't exercise the > restrictions on modification. So there are many FDL-licensed works in > Debian. Yes, because the Debian project started to apply the DFSG to *everything* in the distribution around that time - not just software. > I happen to disagree with the Debian project on this; I think there are > other clauses (e.g. the restriction on distributing a work without a > copy of the license, the restrictions nominally to prevent DRM-enabled > distribution) that make any FDL-licensed work non-free. Quite surprised to hear it. The GPL3 appears to require the same thing (the license must be included), and I would have expected you to consider GPL'ed software as free software. Equally surprised about your objection to the DRM clause. I would have hoped that it was redundant due to the FDL's definition of "Transparent", but I like it - for the same kinds of reasons I like the GPL3 more than the GPL2 (which prevents tivoization - yes, more restrictions!). It ensures that you are not free to restrict somebody's freedom. This is akin to certain laws that ensure morality is enforced. In an ideal world they should not be necessary and certainly they all restrict our freedom, but clearly there are many laws which are important to have - and more will likely be added over time as new kinds of immoral behaviour is identified.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Free-software-melb mailing list Free-software-melb@lists.softwarefreedom.com.au http://lists.softwarefreedom.com.au/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/free-software-melb Free Software Melbourne home page: http://www.freesoftware.asn.au/melb/
