Adonay Felipe Nogueira posted here: https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/directory-discuss/2017-02/msg00030.html
and said: > While we discuss the possible GNU FDL violation, and also the > possibiity to completely disable this faulty CloudFlare feature, we > must also note that: the license is only given to those who actually > get the documentation, and freedom 0 applies once you get it Freedom 0 in the "What is free software?" article is an abstract principle, not bound or limited by any law, contract, or license. It is a guiding principle for which contracts and licenses are based. Alternatively, consider it a high-level preliminary design, and the license text is the implementation- the machinery that attempts to put the abstract principle into action. The process of codifying abstract ideas into something real is inherently lossy. The license is limited in scope due to the nature of a license. We don't undermine the principle simply because the instrument used to uphold it has faults. Everyone can judge for themselves to what extent they endorse freedom 0. When I say the GNU Radio Foundation, Inc. violates "freedom 0" from the "What is free software?" article, this violation is not something a court would recognize. Calling out the violation is nothing more than a name-and-shame activity to compel voluntary action by anyone who cares about freedom 0. Specifically, people who value freedom 0 should not contribute to GNU Radio Foundation, Inc. Calling out the freedom 0 violation also serves as a red flag for those drafting licenses to plug a hole. Through the violation of freedom 0 GNU Radio Foundation, Inc. has attacked many non-software freedoms as well. Even if you personally decide to let the licensing text limit freedom 0, that line of reasoning still fails due to the fact that one can obtain the first copy of GNU Radio using git, thus becoming subject to the license, and then attempt to use wget to acquire gnuradio for another machine, or acquire a different version of gnuradio for the same machine. Or even the same version for the same machine in the event of a need to reinstall it. > and also if we're talking about freedom 0 for the software being > used to get it then it was already fullfilled because the > contracts/agreements/licenses/trademarks related to the software > that were given to you don't deny you such freedom 0. So in order to > understand how this licenses work you must shift the perspective > from the person who attempts to get it to the person who indeed has > it already. Licenses are obviously packaged with the artifact, so your reasoning nullifies completely the clause requiring documentation to be included with software, rendering the clause totally useless under any circumstance. Perhaps a court would even agree with you and allow that technicality overturn the intent of the text. But I think not. It's also pure speculation. When a GFDL is packaged with *some* documentation (any at all), I believe the GFDL becomes enforceable. And consequently, the act of excluding some documentation from the package then becomes legally actionable, and rightly so. And from a philosphical viewpoint, the excluded portion is also jailed behind a corporate walled-garden that blocks freedom 0. What GNU Radio Foundation, Inc. is doing is both a license breach and contrary to free software principles. If FSF is going to have a directory.fsf.org with warning flags for going against FSF principles, it then has a duty to render a warning banner for the any GNU Radio listing that may exist. It is a gross disservice to users to have the flags, and then fail to use them, which serves to mislead by omission. -- Please note this was sent anonymously, so the "From:" address will be unusable. List archives will be monitored.
