Re: Please see the GNU FDL discussion on debian-legal
Thomas Hood wrote: Several people said that they didn't want Debian documentation to be full of political rants. They would like to reserve the right to delete the parts they don't like from the manuals they package. But what is this but censorship? And how is censorship compatible with liberty? and earlier: Protecting the freedom of this form of speech requires a somewhat different strategy from the one used to protect the freedom to copy source code. I think you just answered your own question. Freedom of software and freedom of speech are two entirely different animals, and attempting to confuse them as you do two paragraphs above just muddies the waters. Debian is not an organizaton formed to protect people's freedom of speech. We are here to produce an excellent operating system which our users are free to use and modify as they see fit. Where that conflicts with freedom of speech, we should throw freeodm of speech out the window. Documentaton and software authors do not have freedom of speech on my Debian system; go put your soapbox on a public streetcorner. PS: I think you know that terms like censorship and freedom of speech are very loaded, and I resent you dragging them into this discussion. -- see shy jo -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Please see the GNU FDL discussion on debian-legal
On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 10:02:47PM -0400, Thomas Hood wrote: While I don't regard the DFSG as already applying to documentation, the spirit of it is naturally extended to cover documentation. I would suggest that the GFDL is a reasonable license to use for free documentation --- free as in 'free to use and modify', but also free as in 'free speech'. If the GFDL were a free to use and modify license, then we would not be having this discussion. The problem is that the GFDL specifies parts that we are _not_ free to modify, or even to delete. Several people said that they didn't want Debian documentation to be full of political rants. They would like to reserve the right to delete the parts they don't like from the manuals they package. But what is this but censorship? And how is censorship compatible with liberty? What you're advocating is the evil twin of censorship, namely forced speech. Richard Braakman -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Please see the GNU FDL discussion on debian-legal
Joey Hess wrote: Protecting the freedom of this form of speech requires a somewhat different strategy from the one used to protect the freedom to copy source code. Freedom of software and freedom of speech are two entirely different animals, and attempting to confuse them as you do [...] just muddies the waters. I agree that they are different. I wasn't confusing the two ... I just chose my words in order to concede the point that it is impossible to deny categorically that software is any kind of speech. PS: I think you know that terms like censorship and freedom of speech are very loaded, and I resent you dragging them into this discussion. Resent away. The words are relevant to the discussion. (Tip: Most readers of the mailing list don't want to waste their time reading personal attacks.) Debian is not an organizaton formed to protect people's freedom of speech. We are here to produce an excellent operating system which our users are free to use and modify as they see fit. Where that conflicts with freedom of speech, we should throw freeodm of speech out the window. I think that that is a reasonable position to take. To be consistent with it you should draw up DF Documenatation G in such a way as to exclude invariant-text licenses from the main archive altogether. If this is the way Debian decides to go, though, then I would like to see the policy applied consistently. Richard Braakman wrote: What you're advocating is the evil twin of censorship, namely forced speech. I don't think that placing restrictions on an otherwise completely liberal license amounts to using any kind of force, but that's mere semantics I suppose. I do agree that the various authors of a document may disagree about what they want it to contain, and that resolving the matter by means of invariant sections licenses is not to treat documentation in the same way as Debian treats software. -- Thomas Hood signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: Please see the GNU FDL discussion on debian-legal
On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 02:51:27PM -0400, Thomas Hood wrote: Richard Braakman wrote: What you're advocating is the evil twin of censorship, namely forced speech. I don't think that placing restrictions on an otherwise completely liberal license amounts to using any kind of force, but that's mere semantics I suppose. For what it's worth, I don't think I'm stretching the definition of forced speech any further than you were stretching the definition of censorship. We were both talking about voluntary actions that have no effect on others except to make more copies available than there were before. I think that the option to republish only parts of a work is an important freedom to have, even if exercising that freedom is in some cases a form of censorship. I do agree that the various authors of a document may disagree about what they want it to contain, and that resolving the matter by means of invariant sections licenses is not to treat documentation in the same way as Debian treats software. In that case, we might be remarkably close to agreement in general. (Remarkable for this list, that is :-) Richard Braakman -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Please see the GNU FDL discussion on debian-legal
Em Tue, 9 Apr 2002 14:26:39 +0300, Richard Braakman [EMAIL PROTECTED] escreveu: On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 10:02:47PM -0400, Thomas Hood wrote: While I don't regard the DFSG as already applying to documentation, the spirit of it is naturally extended to cover documentation. I would suggest that the GFDL is a reasonable license to use for free documentation --- free as in 'free to use and modify', but also free as in 'free speech'. If the GFDL were a free to use and modify license, then we would not be having this discussion. The problem is that the GFDL specifies parts that we are _not_ free to modify, or even to delete. indeed, I would not like to see people modifying my points of view and redistributing saying that's what I think, you see Several people said that they didn't want Debian documentation to be full of political rants. They would like to reserve the right to delete the parts they don't like from the manuals they package. But what is this but censorship? And how is censorship compatible with liberty? What you're advocating is the evil twin of censorship, namely forced speech. I can't see why... are you forced to package anything? []s! -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Gustavo Noronha http://people.debian.org/~kov Debian: http://www.debian.org * http://debian-br.cipsga.org.br -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Please see the GNU FDL discussion on debian-legal
begin Gustavo Noronha Silva quotation: Em Tue, 9 Apr 2002 14:26:39 +0300, Richard Braakman [EMAIL PROTECTED] escreveu: If the GFDL were a free to use and modify license, then we would not be having this discussion. The problem is that the GFDL specifies parts that we are _not_ free to modify, or even to delete. indeed, I would not like to see people modifying my points of view and redistributing saying that's what I think, you see Come off it. The license can specify that changes be identified without requiring that sections never be changed or removed. You might as well argue against the GPL on the grounds that someone might add a lot of stupid bugs into your program and then redistribute it, thus making you look like an incompetent programmer. This is why Section 2 of the GPL requires prominent notice of any changes made. I am less familiar with the GFDL, but I expect it includes a similar requirement. So leave the straw men out of this, please. (Though admittedly we might have less to discuss then.) Craig pgpp09vHSdsXk.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Please see the GNU FDL discussion on debian-legal
On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 08:22:07PM -0300, Gustavo Noronha Silva wrote: indeed, I would not like to see people modifying my points of view and redistributing saying that's what I think, you see So if I rewrite charsets (7) (which I'm considering), I should make sure that it's under an invariant license so that nobody can say I think ISO-2022-INT is a good idea? (Believe me, there's as much heat on that subject as there is on many other religious issue in computing.) Even if I were to do so, it still wouldn't stop anyone from writing other documents and putting my name on them, or claiming that I support something I don't in other documents. If you don't want people putting words in your mouth in some POV piece, just put on the bottom I'd prefer you didn't modify this, and if you do, please clearly seperate your opinion from what I wrote. Thanks. What you're advocating is the evil twin of censorship, namely forced speech. I can't see why... are you forced to package anything? So I can't package something because there's something I need to change (to make it Debian quality, for example) that I can't. That's very free. -- David Starner - [EMAIL PROTECTED] It's not a habit; it's cool; I feel alive. If you don't have it you're on the other side. - K's Choice (probably referring to the Internet) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Please see the GNU FDL discussion on debian-legal
I asked: Were there any other important debates about the GFDL that should be read? To answer my own question: http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2001/debian-legal-200112/msg7.html Off to read about 100 messages ... signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: Please see the GNU FDL discussion on debian-legal
On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 04:17:28PM -0400, Thomas Hood wrote: I asked: Were there any other important debates about the GFDL that should be read? To answer my own question: http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2001/debian-legal-200112/msg7.html Off to read about 100 messages ... More than that. You're starting out about a month and a half late: http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2001/debian-legal-200110/msg00096.html -- G. Branden Robinson| The software said it required Debian GNU/Linux | Windows 3.1 or better, so I [EMAIL PROTECTED] | installed Linux. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | pgpmOXc9rE3a9.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Please see the GNU FDL discussion on debian-legal
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2001/debian-legal-200112/msg7.html Off to read about 100 messages ... ... and a tedious experience it was. I would like to make the following points which I didn't see mentioned in the hundreds of messages (many of them snipes and flames). 1. Documentation is different from software. Documentation is a more robust form of speech than software is. Whereas software consists of instructions that can be given to computers to make them perform certain tasks, documentation consists of advice, statements of fact, jokes, opinions, diagrams, wishes, and many other things --- all directed at other human beings, not at machines. Protecting the freedom of this form of speech requires a somewhat different strategy from the one used to protect the freedom to copy source code. The idea of copyrighting software is odd to begin with. If anything, software should be patentable (since it is detailed-instructions-how-to-do-something), not copyrightable (since the exact manner of expression is largely irrelevant). If it were patentable and not copyrightable, then the GPL would be a license to use patented technology rather than a license to copy source code. The GFDL, on the other hand, is a true copyright license, designed not to make sure that a technology remains free, but that a document is freely distributable without distortion of the author's position, but still modifiable under certain restrictions. 2. Debian's goal of promoting liberty in software goes hand in hand with a goal of promoting freedom of speech. While I don't regard the DFSG as already applying to documentation, the spirit of it is naturally extended to cover documentation. I would suggest that the GFDL is a reasonable license to use for free documentation --- free as in 'free to use and modify', but also free as in 'free speech'. Several people said that they didn't want Debian documentation to be full of political rants. They would like to reserve the right to delete the parts they don't like from the manuals they package. But what is this but censorship? And how is censorship compatible with liberty? -- Thomas Hood signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
