Re: Request for suggestions of DFSG-free documentation licences
MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > "Jordi Gutierrez Hermoso" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > What do you want to fix? The reasons for why free software needs > > free documentation or would you like to fix the suggestions on how > > to give funds to the FSF? You think you know better than the FSF > > what funds the FSF needs? > > No, but it may be necessary to update donation details (it may be > more tax- and fee-efficient to pass donations through a body local > to the recipient), or change the wordings for things where > soliciting donations has to be done in a certain way to be legal. More importantly, amending the license ahead of time so that this specific example is allowed doesn't address the root problem. The *recipient* of the work is the one who should be deciding what changes are appropriate for a free work; the licensor *cannot* pretend to cover all possibilities by any means other than an unqualified "you may make any changes to the work". Any work with modification restrictions narrower than that is not a free work. -- \ "A poet more than thirty years old is simply an overgrown | `\ child." -- Henry L. Mencken | _o__) | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Request for suggestions of DFSG-free documentation licences
"Jordi Gutierrez Hermoso" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 05/06/07, MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Small excerpts (e.g. an Emacs reference card from the Emacs info docs) > > > are probably covered under Fair Use. [...] > > > > This is England calling. > > Would the FSF have to sue under US law or UK law an offender in the > UK? I'm genuinely ignorant about this issue. Others know better on the "have to" but if I can't show permission from the copyright holder that's valid under English law, I believe it's possible to be charged with a criminal offence (s.107 CDPA 1998 c.48). I still need to beware English law, never mind where FSF sues. > > poison pill invariant sections > > Huh? Poison pill? As long as you can connect it with one of the six subjects allowed to make something invariant, you can make any topic off-limits for your text. For GNU statistical software for example, this seems very easy to do. Imagine starting the appendix "I first started to use this software after someone used it to illustrate the spurious climate change relationship, which is wrong because..." You could probably do something similar for almost any topic. (Given the waste of paper caused by these adverts, it could be a climate-change double-whammy.) > > and inability to fix some sections. > > What do you want to fix? The reasons for why free software needs free > documentation or would you like to fix the suggestions on how to give > funds to the FSF? You think you know better than the FSF what funds > the FSF needs? No, but it may be necessary to update donation details (it may be more tax- and fee-efficient to pass donations through a body local to the recipient), or change the wordings for things where soliciting donations has to be done in a certain way to be legal. For one more general example, many charity laws have limits on "Acting with other bodies" and political activities, which may limit what invariant sections they can publish. Why should charities be hindered in publishing and reusing free documentation? > [...] But it's Debian who > insists on calling Wikipedia a software distributor (and I'm not > referring to Wikimedia, I'm referring to Wikipedia's content). Since > Debian wants to call every bitstream "software", then it feels like it > can apply the DFSG to every bitstream. We are not alone. One example: "We can't depend for the long run on distinguishing one bitstream from another in order to figure out which rules apply." -- Eben Moglen, in Free Software and the Death of Copyright. Not that it matters: If you agree with me that documentation can be software, you should oppose FSF promoting this non-free software licence. If you agree with FSF that only programs are software, you should oppose FSF promoting this non-software licence. I also think it's tactically inept that FSF rewards legacy publisher corporations (some of whom were among the creators and early supporters of Open Source, and sought to marginalise RMS) with a licence that preserves their business model. Hope that explains, -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Request for suggestions of DFSG-free documentation licences
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Jordi Gutierrez Hermoso <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes On 05/06/07, MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Small excerpts (e.g. an Emacs reference card from the Emacs info docs) > are probably covered under Fair Use. [...] This is England calling. Would the FSF have to sue under US law or UK law an offender in the UK? I'm genuinely ignorant about this issue. English law. The UK is not England. The UK does *not* *have* a legal system, as legally it is two kingdoms, each with their constitutionally guaranteed separate legal systems (think of it as if the US congress could pass state laws that applied in one or other state, but could not pass laws which applied to the entire US as a whole. Weird, I know, but it's the system we have). The UK (yes I know I said we don't have a legal system) is a signatory to Berne, which merely guarantees that a foreigner has the same rights as the locals. So, as a USian, you can sue in the UK with exactly the same rights as a UK subject would have. Which is why, if as a UKian I want to sue in the US, I have to register my copyright with the Library of Congress just like you have to do. Cheers, Wol -- Anthony W. Youngman - [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Request for suggestions of DFSG-free documentation licences
Jordi Gutierrez Hermoso writes: > On 05/06/07, MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > Small excerpts (e.g. an Emacs reference card from the Emacs info docs) >> > are probably covered under Fair Use. [...] >> >> This is England calling. > > Would the FSF have to sue under US law or UK law an offender in the > UK? I'm genuinely ignorant about this issue. The usual rule on personal jurisdiction in civil suits is that a suit must be filed where (a) the defendant(s) reside, (b) where the alleged tort took place or (c) in some place that the parties agreed would have jurisdiction. Neither the GPL nor GFDL have a choice-of-venue clause, so (c) would not apply. If the courts in (a) decline to enforce judgments made by the courts in (b), then for practical reasons a plaintiff would be advised to file in (a). Similarly, the applicable law would be (a) the law of the court hearing the case or (b) a set of law that the parties agreed to use. Neither the GPL nor GFDL have a choice-of-law clause, so (b) does not apply. So, under the usual rules, a prospective plaintiff would have to sue a UK resident in UK courts under UK law. (IANAL, TINLA, and usual rules have seldom stopped sufficiently determined plaintiffs in the past.) >> poison pill invariant sections > > Huh? Poison pill? Poison pills are clauses or sections that make it impractical to do certain things. The GFDL's definition of "Secondary Section" permit a variety of poison pills, as other potential publishers or distributors might see them. >> and inability to fix some sections. > > What do you want to fix? The reasons for why free software needs free > documentation or would you like to fix the suggestions on how to give > funds to the FSF? You think you know better than the FSF what funds > the FSF needs? > > Since invariant sections can't be about technical matters, I really > fail to see what non-technical aspects could possibly need to be > "fixed". Invariant sections could have factual references that are inaccurate or become outdated. The FSF's mailing address is one example of GPL boilerplate that has changed several times; I have no idea if people include that or any similar information in invariant sections. I looked at the Emacs manual[1] to check, but -- contrary to the usage recommendation contained in the FDL itself -- could not find a statement as to whether it contains any invariant sections. [1]- http://www.gnu.org/software/emacs/manual/emacs.html Michael Poole -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Request for suggestions of DFSG-free documentation licences
On 05/06/07, MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Small excerpts (e.g. an Emacs reference card from the Emacs info docs) > are probably covered under Fair Use. [...] This is England calling. Would the FSF have to sue under US law or UK law an offender in the UK? I'm genuinely ignorant about this issue. poison pill invariant sections Huh? Poison pill? and inability to fix some sections. What do you want to fix? The reasons for why free software needs free documentation or would you like to fix the suggestions on how to give funds to the FSF? You think you know better than the FSF what funds the FSF needs? Since invariant sections can't be about technical matters, I really fail to see what non-technical aspects could possibly need to be "fixed". > [...] Debian > really is the odd distro out here by considering GFDL docs non-free. Not even RMS or the FSF calls the FDL a Free Software licence. Of course the FSF doesn't consider the GFDL a free software licence. That's why it recommends releasing any substantial amount of code from a GFDLed doc under the GPL. I wouldn't call the GFDL a free software licence; it isn't a software licence at all. But it's Debian who insists on calling Wikipedia a software distributor (and I'm not referring to Wikimedia, I'm referring to Wikipedia's content). Since Debian wants to call every bitstream "software", then it feels like it can apply the DFSG to every bitstream. Software simply doesn't need the same freedoms as documentation, but Debian disagrees. Perhaps it wants to modify the results of the MOTIVATION article in the Emacs distribution in hopes of altering reality by altering the findings of the article (yes, I'm trolling, sorry, but the whole GFDL thing and Debian really gets my knickers in a twist). non-free-software aspects of FDL and was just yanking our chain. Debian calling the GFDL "non-free" reminds me so much of the BSD zealots calling the GPL "non-free". This really is the stuff of flamewars (such as this one). - Jordi G. H. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Request for suggestions of DFSG-free documentation licences
On Tue, 5 Jun 2007 12:10:36 +0100 (BST) MJ Ray wrote: > Jordi Gutierrez Hermoso <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...] [...] > Not even RMS or the FSF calls the FDL a Free Software licence. Indeed: see the last sentence of http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/09/msg01221.html > > > [...] > > FSF: Er... Maybe we can work something out? > > > > Debian: What? Wait, I'm busy... There! Your filthy propaganda > > has been moved to non-free. [...] > > This is wrong. Debian delayed moving FDL'd stuff to non-free for over > a year after the problem was noticed, waiting on promised FSF > cooperation. I think a full release went out in the meantime. Agreed. Long-lasting debian-legal discussions about the GFDL went on during 2003. They were basically over in 2004. Manoj Srivastava's proposed statement was drafted more or less in that period, IIRC: http://people.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/Position_Statement.xhtml The Debian Social Contract was edited in 2004, in order to make it clearer that not only programs had to be free: http://www.debian.org/vote/2004/vote_003 Then the new amended SC text was postponed until the release of sarge: http://www.debian.org/vote/2004/vote_004 All non-free documentation bugs were granted a sarge-ignore tag. After sarge release (6th of June, 2005: http://www.debian.org/releases/sarge/), the non-free documentation bugs slowly started to be addressed. > As I > understand it, it was FSF asking us to wait because they were busy > with things and then the GPLv3. > > I think the Debian project was more than willing to help resolve this > amicably, but FSF seemed determined to keep the non-free-software > aspects of FDL and was just yanking our chain. In some cases, Debian was even told to stop helping: http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/09/msg00825.html > Even then, some FDL'd > material got a special approval into main. With an unexplained GR: http://www.debian.org/vote/2006/vote_001 Disclaimers: * this is how I recall things, correct me if I'm wrong * IANADD -- http://frx.netsons.org/doc/nanodocs/testing_workstation_install.html Need to read a Debian testing installation walk-through? . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4 pgpTu8l52L7LC.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Request for suggestions of DFSG-free documentation licences
Jordi Gutierrez Hermoso <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...] > Kinda, but not really. It seems that Debian's objections against the > GFDL are highly academic and unlikely to arise in practice. I mean, > how many of those objections have actually worked against Wikipedia, > the largest collection of "software" (as Debian calls it) under the > GFDL? [...] Is this a joke? Have people forgotten Wikipedia unilaterally relicensed without getting consent from its copyright holders? See near the end of http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/05/msg00565.html The linked emails now seem to be http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2001-October/000627.html http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2002-June/002251.html but Wikipedia URIs are not Cool http://www.w3.org/Provider/Style/URI Perhaps some would call this academic, but then perhaps some call any copyright infringment which is not prosecuted an academic worry. Should non-enforcement encourage us to ignore the expressed wishes? > Small excerpts (e.g. an Emacs reference card from the Emacs info docs) > are probably covered under Fair Use. [...] This is England calling. I don't get what USians call Fair Use. The FDL is a practical problem in several ways, including reference cards, poison pill invariant sections and inability to fix some sections. > [...] Debian > really is the odd distro out here by considering GFDL docs non-free. Not even RMS or the FSF calls the FDL a Free Software licence. > [...] > FSF: Er... Maybe we can work something out? > > Debian: What? Wait, I'm busy... There! Your filthy propaganda has > been moved to non-free. [...] This is wrong. Debian delayed moving FDL'd stuff to non-free for over a year after the problem was noticed, waiting on promised FSF cooperation. I think a full release went out in the meantime. As I understand it, it was FSF asking us to wait because they were busy with things and then the GPLv3. I think the Debian project was more than willing to help resolve this amicably, but FSF seemed determined to keep the non-free-software aspects of FDL and was just yanking our chain. Even then, some FDL'd material got a special approval into main. Regards, -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Request for suggestions of DFSG-free documentation licences
On Mon, 04 Jun 2007, Jordi Gutierrez Hermoso wrote: > On 03/06/07, Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >the maintainer (and the developers) recognized that users may need > >or want such documentation, even though it does not meet the DFSG, > >so the documentation was made available in non-free. > > That's a rather unsatisfactory fix. Although it does work for most > practical purposes, the inability to ship Debian CDs with the > necessary docs is quite a hindrance. There's also the PR image of > Debian to consider, I think. There's nothing stoping CDs with content that you feel is free enough being made. And frankly, being concerned with a PR image isn't a valid reason to compromise principles. The FSF is no more interested in its public image than Debian is. [If the FSF or Debian were, there's no doubt that RMS, myself, and the rest of us who are non-photogenic would have been hidden away long ago.] > >If you disagree with the determination of the Developers, you can > >easily install the work from non-free, or cease supporting Debian > >in its entirety. The choice is yours, really. > > That's unfair. I have been exclusively a Debian user since 2001. > Installing GFDLed stuff from non-free is what I do, but it's > inconvenient to track down those packages that aren't installed by > default anymore. I agree, which is why I've personally been involved in pressuring the FSF to resolve the remaining issues in the GFDL for quite some time. In my opinion, recognizing the issues and getting them resolved is the right way forward; ignoring them because they come from the FSF is not. > The moralistic tone of the installation is also problematic for me, > since I'm very proud to say that all of my work is done exclusively > with free software (practically the BIOS is the only non-free > software I have to use anymore). This an important distinction for > the mathematical and scientific work that I do (proprietary software > is unscientific, etc). Deciding to use free software is quite often a moralistic stance; where your convictions and morals lie dictate how you feel about this issue. > "Our way or the highway" isn't a nice thought either. Do you really > think that the DDs that voted against putting the GFDL in non-free > should fork off too? Debian is the best distro out there, and I'm > very loyal to it, but I'malso very unhappy with its treatement of > the GFDL, and I think this horrible mess should be fixed. If a developer is unable to accept the decision of the majority as the decision of Debian on a particular issue, that's really all that they can do. In the end, of course, the separation of works into main and non-free is necessarily a judgement based on the licenses which the works have. Anyone who disagrees with the final determination made has the ability to decide that the packages in the archive have incorrectly segregated, and filter the Packages.gz files in the archive appropriately. Regardless, in this particular case, the only way to effect the change you are calling for is to have a GR to overturn the existing GR. Discussion of the issue on this mailing list will not cause the GR to disappear. Don Armstrong -- Debian's not really about the users or the software at all. It's a large flame-generating engine that the cabal uses to heat their coffee -- Andrew Suffield (#debian-devel Fri, 14 Feb 2003 14:34 -0500) http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Request for suggestions of DFSG-free documentation licences
On 03/06/07, Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Sun, 03 Jun 2007, Jordi Gutierrez Hermoso wrote: > Debian decided to make it a problem for itself and for its users. the maintainer (and the developers) recognized that users may need or want such documentation, even though it does not meet the DFSG, so the documentation was made available in non-free. That's a rather unsatisfactory fix. Although it does work for most practical purposes, the inability to ship Debian CDs with the necessary docs is quite a hindrance. There's also the PR image of Debian to consider, I think. If you disagree with the determination of the Developers, you can easily install the work from non-free, or cease supporting Debian in its entirety. The choice is yours, really. That's unfair. I have been exclusively a Debian user since 2001. Installing GFDLed stuff from non-free is what I do, but it's inconvenient to track down those packages that aren't installed by default anymore. The moralistic tone of the installation is also problematic for me, since I'm very proud to say that all of my work is done exclusively with free software (practically the BIOS is the only non-free software I have to use anymore). This an important distinction for the mathematical and scientific work that I do (proprietary software is unscientific, etc). "Our way or the highway" isn't a nice thought either. Do you really think that the DDs that voted against putting the GFDL in non-free should fork off too? Debian is the best distro out there, and I'm very loyal to it, but I'malso very unhappy with its treatement of the GFDL, and I think this horrible mess should be fixed. - Jordi G. H. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Request for suggestions of DFSG-free documentation licences
On Sun, 03 Jun 2007, Jordi Gutierrez Hermoso wrote: > On 03/06/07, Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >On Sun, 03 Jun 2007, Jordi Gutierrez Hermoso wrote: > >> I have yet to see a practical example of a situation that actually > >> happened that justifies Debian's concerns against the GFDL. > > > >The practical example is the fact that we cannot make extracts of > >GFDLed documentation even for manpages without including the text > >of the GFDL and any invariant sections from the manual. > > So you're saying that the current gcc*doc* package in non-free that > places the invariant sections in a separate manpage is violating the > GFDL? Yes. It is my understanding that it is violating the letter of the GFDL. > This isn't a real problem. The FSF isn't going to be enacting legal > action against OpenBSD or all the other distros who created a gcc > manpage from the info docs. I believe most of us agree on this point, which is why the status quo of a work present in non-free hasn't been seriously challenged. You'll note though, that we do not (and cannot) distribute gcc-4.1.1(7) seprately from gpl(7); there is a versioned dependency between those packages. > Debian decided to make it a problem for itself and for its users. The Developers as a whole decided that the problems with invariant sections and the GFDL were sufficient enough to exclude them from main. However, the maintainer (and the developers) recognized that users may need or want such documentation, even though it does not meet the DFSG, so the documentation was made available in non-free. If you disagree with the determination of the Developers, you can easily install the work from non-free, or cease supporting Debian in its entirety. The choice is yours, really. Don Armstrong -- You could say she lived on the edge... Well, maybe not exactly on the edge, just close enough to watch other people fall off. -- hugh macleod http://www.gapingvoid.com/batch8.htm http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Request for suggestions of DFSG-free documentation licences
On 03/06/07, Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Sun, 03 Jun 2007, Jordi Gutierrez Hermoso wrote: > I have yet to see a practical example of a situation that actually > happened that justifies Debian's concerns against the GFDL. The practical example is the fact that we cannot make extracts of GFDLed documentation even for manpages without including the text of the GFDL and any invariant sections from the manual. So you're saying that the current gcc*doc* package in non-free that places the invariant sections in a separate manpage is violating the GFDL? Or is placing the invariant pages in a separate manpage not an extract of GFDL documentation? Seems to me that it *is* an extract and that supplying both gcc (1) and fsf-funding (7) adheres to the GFDL. Indeed, this almost the path that OpenBSD has followed too. There's no practical benefit from removing an insignifcantly small invariant section from a large document except for a desire to not distribute FSF propaganda. If you create a small excerpt from a large GFDL document, you can probably omit the invariant section per Fair Use policies. This isn't a real problem. The FSF isn't going to be enacting legal action against OpenBSD or all the other distros who created a gcc manpage from the info docs. Debian decided to make it a problem for itself and for its users. - Jordi G. H. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Request for suggestions of DFSG-free documentation licences
On Sun, 03 Jun 2007, Jordi Gutierrez Hermoso wrote: > I have yet to see a practical example of a situation that actually > happened that justifies Debian's concerns against the GFDL. The practical example is the fact that we cannot make extracts of GFDLed documentation even for manpages without including the text of the GFDL and any invariant sections from the manual. This in itself is why we do not have GFDLed manpages. Don Armstrong -- Never underestimate the power of human stupidity. -- Robert Heinlein http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Request for suggestions of DFSG-free documentation licences
On 03/06/07, Adam Borowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Sat, Jun 02, 2007 at 07:16:30PM -0500, Jordi Gutierrez Hermoso wrote: > Kinda, but not really. It seems that Debian's objections against the > GFDL are highly academic and unlikely to arise in practice. I mean, > how many of those objections have actually worked against Wikipedia, > the largest collection of "software" (as Debian calls it) under the > GFDL? Please read the part about invariant sections on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyrights -- in a quite convoluted way they say "you may add invariant sections and cover text only if they're neither invariant when it's technically possible to change them, nor unremovable, nor placed on cover of any kind". Ie, you can't have them. Yes, so how has the GFDL hurt Wikipedia? And how the hell are you going to justify adding an invariant section to Wikipedia since the breadth of its content is all of human knowledge and invariant sections can only deal with subject matter that is not related to the main subject of a GFDLed doc? I have yet to see a practical example of a situation that actually happened that justifies Debian's concerns against the GFDL. In the meantime, "man gcc" still says here that gcc has no manpage, contrary to Debian policy. - Jordi G. H. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Request for suggestions of DFSG-free documentation licences
On Sat, Jun 02, 2007 at 07:16:30PM -0500, Jordi Gutierrez Hermoso wrote: > Kinda, but not really. It seems that Debian's objections against the > GFDL are highly academic and unlikely to arise in practice. I mean, > how many of those objections have actually worked against Wikipedia, > the largest collection of "software" (as Debian calls it) under the > GFDL? Except, the main block, the only one which cannot be ignored with optimistic interpretation, has been specifically excluded from Wikipedia. Please read the part about invariant sections on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyrights -- in a quite convoluted way they say "you may add invariant sections and cover text only if they're neither invariant when it's technically possible to change them, nor unremovable, nor placed on cover of any kind". Ie, you can't have them. > > THE DEBIAN / GFDL FIASCO > A most lamentable tragedie of Incompatible Philosophies > in three ackts Please. If that's not mindless flamebait, I don't know what is. And s/ackts/acts/g. -- 1KB // Microsoft corollary to Hanlon's razor: // Never attribute to stupidity what can be // adequately explained by malice. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Request for suggestions of DFSG-free documentation licences
"Jordi Gutierrez Hermoso" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > In practice, the GFDLed docs can be copied and modified as much as > they need to be The DFSG requires that *any* modification be allowed to the work, and that the result be redistributable under the license. This is not the case for the FDL, and certainly not for works combining GPL and FDL covered works. > the further modifications Debian claims they need are not needed; Fortunately, the DFSG is drafted to let the *recipient* decide what modifications they need to make to the work. > invariant sections are *tiny* in comparison with the rest of the GNU > manuals We're not discussing GNU manuals. We're discussing works under the FDL, a license that is available for anyone to apply to their works. > I doubt that the FSF would sue for GFDL compliance Again, the FDL is available for any party to apply to their work, so speculation as to what the FSF would or would not do doesn't seem to be relevant here. > Also, it just doesn't make sense to modify some things Fortunately, the DFSG requires that works be licensed such that the recipient of the work can decide what modifications make sense. -- \ "I filled my humidifier with wax. Now my room is all shiny." | `\ -- Steven Wright | _o__) | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Request for suggestions of DFSG-free documentation licences
On 26/05/07, Ben Finney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Jordi, please follow the code of conduct for the mailing lists http://www.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct>. Specifically, don't send a separate copy of list messages to me, as I haven't asked for that. Oops, sorry. I forget. Other non-Debian mailing lists have different codes of conduct. "Jordi Gutierrez Hermoso" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: [snip] > GFDL [snip] > what's the big deal? On 26/05/07, Ben Finney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: The GPL also requires that any derivative work that one distributes must be licensed under the GPL terms. [snip] The document author, by placing only *some* parts of the work under the GPL, is essentially determining for the recipient what parts they will find useful to combine with other parts of the software. [snip] Further, when parts of a work licensed under GPL are combined into the FDL-licensed work, the result is *not redistributable at all*, [snip] Hopefully you now have a better understanding of some of the problems. Kinda, but not really. It seems that Debian's objections against the GFDL are highly academic and unlikely to arise in practice. I mean, how many of those objections have actually worked against Wikipedia, the largest collection of "software" (as Debian calls it) under the GFDL? In practice, the GFDLed docs can be copied and modified as much as they need to be; the further modifications Debian claims they need are not needed; invariant sections are *tiny* in comparison with the rest of the GNU manuals and relatively as visible as attribution and copyright clauses that have to go into free software anyways. Small excerpts (e.g. an Emacs reference card from the Emacs info docs) are probably covered under Fair Use. I doubt that the FSF would sue for GFDL compliance because someone made a small Emacs reference card without the invariant section. Also, it just doesn't make sense to modify some things, e.g. the news article previously distributed with Debian's Emacs by permission of the author, but that doesn't mean that it can't be useful and even freedom-abiding to distribute such unmodifiable content. And then we have stuff like the GSL docs with eight pages of invariant sections, six of which are license texts which are already invariant anyways as previously discussed in this list (and no, I'm not going to file a bug against gsl-doc-pdf because two pages out of a total of 490 endorse free documentation; you go ahead and do it yourself if you wish). Perhaps the clause intended to work against DRM was vague, but again, is the FSF going to sue anyone because they encrypt their own hard drive and just happen to have GFDLed docs in the hard drive? At any rate, the GFDL's DRM clause has gotten clarified for GPLv3. Heck, even OpenBSD, who argue that the GPL isn't free enough to put it into the OpenBSD kernel and who are strong freedom advocates in their own way like Debian and the FSF, even OpenBSD thinks that the GFDL is good enough for distribution alongside with free software. Debian really is the odd distro out here by considering GFDL docs non-free. Just as the FSF is accused of endorsing the GFDL so that it can put in there its invariant sections, I have my own caricature of Debian in this regard: THE DEBIAN / GFDL FIASCO A most lamentable tragedie of Incompatible Philosophies in three ackts A producktion of the debian-legal players with special collaboration by Jordi G. H. ACKT 1: FSF: Here you go! Have a GNU manual. You can give it to anyone and you can modify it just like you can modify GNU software. We also have it in a format that's comfortable for modification, for your benefit. Debian: Great! We'll put it in our repositories with the rest of the other nifty GNU products. Isn't it fantastic you and I are such good friends? ACKT 2: FSF: Oh, by the way, free software needs free documentation, here is how you can contribute to the GNU project and this is what the GNU project is all about. Spread the word! Debian: Whoa, wait a minute there, mate. How dare you attempt to impose your fascist hippie tree-hugging communist philosophy on us? Non-free, non-free, NON-FREE! ACKT 3: FSF: Er... Maybe we can work something out? Debian: What? Wait, I'm busy... There! Your filthy propaganda has been moved to non-free. Ha! Now when users type "man gcc" they get "No manual entry for gcc. See 'man 7 undocumented' for help when manual pages are not available." That's it, no further clarification or explanation as to why what's seemingly an essential manpage for an essential package and which should be there according to our very own policy manual is missing. None of that! Only confused users and essential softw
Re: Request for suggestions of DFSG-free documentation licences
On Sun, May 27, 2007 at 10:15:06AM +1000, Ben Finney wrote: > The document author, by placing only *some* parts of the work under > the GPL, is essentially determining for the recipient what parts they > will find useful to combine with other parts of the software. Prose > descriptive parts could be combined into the data, for instance; if > the license does not allow this, an essential freedom is denied. > > On the other hand, if the author acknowledges that *any* part of the > work could be useful for some recipient to combine with other parts of > the work, *even if the author can't conceive of it initially*, then > the logical thing to do is to license all parts of the work under the > same terms. > > Further, when parts of a work licensed under GPL are combined into the > FDL-licensed work, the result is *not redistributable at all*, because > the GPL says the resulting work must be entirely licensed under GPL, > which conflicts with the FDL work's license terms. There are no real solutions except: * boycotting one of the licenses (easy to tell which one) whenever you have the chance to do so (ie, mostly as upstream) * bashing the FSF until they merge GPL and GFDL Of course, as a maintainer you usually can't do anything but complain, or look the other way at contamination incidents. Which are quite common -- even "foo --help" is likely to be one. And looking the other way, while popular, can't be called the most sound advice... -- 1KB // Microsoft corollary to Hanlon's razor: // Never attribute to stupidity what can be // adequately explained by malice. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Request for suggestions of DFSG-free documentation licences
Ben Finney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > The GPL also requires that any derivative work that one distributes > must be licensed under the GPL terms. This is incompatible with > taking part of a work under a different license and combining it > with the GPL work to distribute. This is true only, of course, if the other license prevents changing the license of the whole work to GPL. This is the case for FDL, which is the "other license" in question in this thread. -- \ "'Did you sleep well?' 'No, I made a couple of mistakes.'" -- | `\ Steven Wright | _o__) | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Request for suggestions of DFSG-free documentation licences
Jordi, please follow the code of conduct for the mailing lists http://www.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct>. Specifically, don't send a separate copy of list messages to me, as I haven't asked for that. "Jordi Gutierrez Hermoso" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I keep hearing about how important it is to have everything licensed > the same way because you can't move GGPL code into a GFDL manual or > move code from the GFDL manual into a GGPL manual (extra G added on > GPL just for fun). I don't understand. The GFDL allows free > modification of code (since it's a technical section, can't be > invariant), so what's the big deal? The GPL also requires that any derivative work that one distributes must be licensed under the GPL terms. This is incompatible with taking part of a work under a different license and combining it with the GPL work to distribute. If all the software in the package was licensed under the GPL, then parts of the documentation could be mixed freely with the programs, and vice versa, to create a derived work to distribute; the same license terms apply to all of the software so the GPL terms are met. > Moreover, the document that describes how to apply GFDL even > suggests itself to license code in the manual under the GPL, if this > code is substantial (which it rarely is; I can't think of a GNU > manual that has any considerable amount of code that can't already > be extracted and used under the terms of the GFDL). The document author, by placing only *some* parts of the work under the GPL, is essentially determining for the recipient what parts they will find useful to combine with other parts of the software. Prose descriptive parts could be combined into the data, for instance; if the license does not allow this, an essential freedom is denied. On the other hand, if the author acknowledges that *any* part of the work could be useful for some recipient to combine with other parts of the work, *even if the author can't conceive of it initially*, then the logical thing to do is to license all parts of the work under the same terms. Further, when parts of a work licensed under GPL are combined into the FDL-licensed work, the result is *not redistributable at all*, because the GPL says the resulting work must be entirely licensed under GPL, which conflicts with the FDL work's license terms. > I have strong disagreements with Debian's treatment of the GFDL (and > it makes us Debianistas look like fundamentalist wackos to the rest > of the free software world), but perhaps those are concerns for > another time. I just don't see why it's such a problem to have > "software", as Debian calls documentation, with different licenses > for intended different usages. Hopefully you now have a better understanding of some of the problems. There are others, that have been covered elsewhere in this thread. -- \ "If you do not trust the source do not use this program." -- | `\ Microsoft Vista security dialogue | _o__) | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Request for suggestions of DFSG-free documentation licences
On 25/05/07, Ben Finney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: The "lot of complex clauses ... that would be cumbersome and unnecessary" is greatly outweighed by the huge simplification that comes from having *all* software in a package -- programs, documentation, data -- licensed the same way, as already addressed in this thread. I keep hearing about how important it is to have everything licensed the same way because you can't move GGPL code into a GFDL manual or move code from the GFDL manual into a GGPL manual (extra G added on GPL just for fun). I don't understand. The GFDL allows free modification of code (since it's a technical section, can't be invariant), so what's the big deal? Moreover, the document that describes how to apply GFDL even suggests itself to license code in the manual under the GPL, if this code is substantial (which it rarely is; I can't think of a GNU manual that has any considerable amount of code that can't already be extracted and used under the terms of the GFDL). I have strong disagreements with Debian's treatment of the GFDL (and it makes us Debianistas look like fundamentalist wackos to the rest of the free software world), but perhaps those are concerns for another time. I just don't see why it's such a problem to have "software", as Debian calls documentation, with different licenses for intended different usages. - Jordi G. H. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Request for suggestions of DFSG-free documentation licences
Shriramana Sharma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Thanks for all your feedback, but the GPL also has some clauses that > are not applicable to documentation as pointed out at: > > http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#WhyNotGPLForManuals If you re-read that section, it mostly addresses the FSF's desire for you to use their problematic FDL for documentation. Other messages in this thread have already pointed you to the problems for using the FDL. The only part in that section that actually addresses the GPL is: = The GPL was designed for programs; it contains lots of complex clauses that are crucial for programs, but that would be cumbersome and unnecessary for a book or manual. For instance, anyone publishing the book on paper would have to either include machine-readable "source code" of the book along with each printed copy, or provide a written offer to send the "source code" later. = The "lot of complex clauses ... that would be cumbersome and unnecessary" is greatly outweighed by the huge simplification that comes from having *all* software in a package -- programs, documentation, data -- licensed the same way, as already addressed in this thread. The only specific example given of a problem for the GPL applied to documentation is the requirement for the recipient to have access to the source. When distributing the package electronically, this is obviously no more a problem than for any other part of the software. When printing the book, a written offer to provide the source on request is sufficient. In summary: Please consider that section to be contrary to debian-legal's opinion of licensing. It's the view of most people on this list -- even most of those who *don't* see a problem with the FDL -- that it is still better to license all software in a package under the same license terms. If you want to choose the GPL for this, there's no problem with, and great convenience from, licensing all the software under those terms. -- \ "Kill myself? Killing myself is the last thing I'd ever do." | `\ -- Homer, _The Simpsons_ | _o__) | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Request for suggestions of DFSG-free documentation licences
Thanks for all your feedback, but the GPL also has some clauses that are not applicable to documentation as pointed out at: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#WhyNotGPLForManuals I thought of using the Boost license: http://boost.org/LICENSE_1_0.txt but it is not listed at: http://wiki.debian.org/DFSGLicenses so I am wondering whether it is OK or not. I will start a separate thread for that. Shriramana Sharma. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Request for suggestions of DFSG-free documentation licences
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >I remember reading that the GFDL is not DFSG-free (due to some clauses >regarding invariant sections or something) so I would like to know what As long as you do not use these optional clauses it is free like any other DFSG license. OTOH, you should ask yourself what is the point of choosing the GFDL over other more common licenses like the GPL. -- ciao, Marco -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Request for suggestions of DFSG-free documentation licences
Shriramana Sharma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> asked: > I remember reading that the GFDL is not DFSG-free (due to some clauses > regarding invariant sections or something) so I would like to know what > is a DFSG-free license for documentation, since a project I am working > on wants to license its documentation in a DFSG-free way. The same free software licence as the rest of the project's software. More comments on FDL http://mjr.towers.org.uk/blog/2006/fdl#dfsg -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Request for suggestions of DFSG-free documentation licences
"Wesley J. Landaker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Tuesday 22 May 2007 08:09:33 Ben Finney wrote: > > The consensus (not unanimous, but consensus nonetheless) of > > debian-legal is that the DFSG, regardless of which of its clauses are > > exercised, is non-free for any software, including documentation. > > (I assume you meant "GFDL" here instead of "DFSG".) My apologies, yes. "... the GFDL ... is non-free for any software, including documentation" was my intended meaning. > It's stretching quite a bit to call it consensus, but anyway, given > that the GPL and other good Free Software licenses can work > perfectly fine for both software and documentation, there isn't much > reason IMO to use the GFDL. Indeed. If you're in the position of deciding the license for all the software in the package, just use one license that applies to each file, and the issues become much simpler. -- \ "Laugh and the world laughs with you; snore and you sleep | `\ alone." -- Anonymous | _o__) | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Request for suggestions of DFSG-free documentation licences
On Tuesday 22 May 2007 08:09:33 Ben Finney wrote: > The consensus (not unanimous, but consensus nonetheless) of > debian-legal is that the DFSG, regardless of which of its clauses are > exercised, is non-free for any software, including documentation. (I assume you meant "GFDL" here instead of "DFSG".) It's stretching quite a bit to call it consensus, but anyway, given that the GPL and other good Free Software licenses can work perfectly fine for both software and documentation, there isn't much reason IMO to use the GFDL. I would personally recommend just using the GPL, or if you must use the GFDL for compatibility with something, dual-licensing both GFDL and GPL. -- Wesley J. Landaker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> OpenPGP FP: 4135 2A3B 4726 ACC5 9094 0097 F0A9 8A4C 4CD6 E3D2 signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: Request for suggestions of DFSG-free documentation licences
Shriramana Sharma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I remember reading that the GFDL is not DFSG-free (due to some clauses > regarding invariant sections or something) The Debian project is in the strange situation that a license which has many freeness issues[0] has been voted explicitly free without supporting reasoning -- similar to the act of legislating that the value of pi is exactly 3, regardless of mathematics to the contrary. In particular, the specific case of a work under GFDL without exercise of any of the clauses specifying non-modifiable document sections has been voted by general resolution[1] to meet the DFSG, despite all the arguments to the contrary. The general resolution unfortunately gave no guidance on how to interpret this outcome, and many voters were likely tired of the protracted debates on the topic so perhaps saw it as a way to avoid the discussion. Note that most documentation from the GNU project *does* exercise those particular clauses, and so is not covered by this general resolution. The consensus (not unanimous, but consensus nonetheless) of debian-legal is that the DFSG, regardless of which of its clauses are exercised, is non-free for any software, including documentation. > so I would like to know what is a DFSG-free license for > documentation, since a project I am working on wants to license its > documentation in a DFSG-free way. Choose a single, free license to cover all the software: programs, data, documentation, all of it. That is the simplest way to ensure that all the software is free. [0] http://people.debian.org/~srivasta/Position_Statement.xhtml [1] http://www.debian.org/vote/2006/vote_001 -- \ "Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored." -- | `\ Aldous Huxley | _o__) | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
