On Mon, Dec 10, 2001 at 02:06:20PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 09, 2001 at 10:44:21PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > > or are we trying to make emacs non-free,
> > No, but it is also not my intent to author some decree that specific
> > works shall never be regarded as non-free.
>
> No one's talking about how the DFSG might change later, it's how it might
> change now that's being discussed.
All right, fine. It's not my intent to author some decree that names
specific packages and says they shall not be regarded as non-free right
now.
What matters is the license(s) of the work.
> Are you trying to make emacs20 non-free?
Not particularly.
> Do you think emacs20 should be considered non-free?
I'm undecided on that point. I think it's conceivable that I might
consider some of its documentation non-free. This point is probably
irrelevant, since I suspect the FSF would be happy to relicense the GNU
Emacs 20 Manual under the same the terms as the version 21 manual to the
whole world. I cannot think of grounds on which they'd prefer to keep
the old manual what they appear to consider an inferior documentation
license.
> If we're trying for minimal changes, then deciding emacs20 as packaged
> right now is non-free is out of scope (since the minimal changes would be
> to let FDL stuff be considered free, and not make anything we currently
> consider DFSG-free non-free).
Minimal changes to our interpretive guidelines (which to date have been
largely undocumented) or minimal changes to the current contents of
main? These are distinct goals.
> > The DFSG should be blind as
> > to the identity of the works whose licenses it measures.
>
> Weren't you just exhorting the benefits of relating the proposal to existing
> packages a minute ago?
Here's what I mean by ex nihilo reasoning.
Because I do not believe the DFSG, or any interpretive guideline
regarding it, should not say "The GNU Emacs Manual shall be regarded as
DFSG-free" does not mean that we shouldn't be cognizant of the impacts
of any changes to the DFSG, or explication of an interpretive guideline
for the DFSG, on packages already in the distribution.
That includes the GNU Emacs Manual, which is part of the emacs21
package. An older version of the GNU Emacs Manual is part of the
emacs20 package.
> Only if you consider that no change at all (the minimum change) would
> declare emacs20 non-free; and since we don't consider emacs20 non-free
> that's not correct.
That's not necessarily true. Perhaps the package maintainer and/or FTP
maintaines were not fully congizant of these aspects of the license on
the GNU Emacs Manual.
Would you also say:
"Only if you consider that no change at all (the minimum change) would
declare parts of doc-linux-{text,html}* non-free; and since we don't
consider doc-linux-{text,html}* non-free that's not correct." ?
We could take a straw poll of the FTP and package maintainers now and
find out what they think about emacs20. We could, alternatively or
additionally, come up with guidelines covering cases like this.
> Again: "A small amount of unmodifiable, non-technical, text will not
> make an otherwise DFSG-free package non-free."
>
> If you don't like the hint on "small" I gave last time, please give a
> better run down of the packages this applies to so that we can come up
> with one. Evidently you have better examples to work with than than the
> one you originally cited, so please tell us about them.
Again, I know of no packages currently in the Debian GNU/Linux
Distribution (that means "main") aside from gcc-*-doc and emacs{20,21}
that would be affected by this proposal.
I'm regarding the LDP issue as moot since Colin Watson has already
elected to exclude any manuals that aren't unambiguously DFSG-free from
the package that goes into main.
> > Granting exceptions to DFSG 3 and 4 for copyright notices and
> > license texts seems uncontroversial. The problem is that we need more
> > exceptions than that if some of the present contents of main are not to
> > come under review.
>
> See?
>
> Adding exceptions for some things encourages people to think we
> should review main for any other subtle exceptions.
And that's a bad thing why, exactly?
As you may recall, I dealt with a similar problem with the xfree86
source package recently. There was non-free (but unused) source code in
the .orig.tar.gz. As soon as I became aware of it, I felt ethically
obliged by the Debian Social Contract to do something about it.
Do you suggest that I need not have taken any action, and would better
have regarded the existence of non-free software in main as a "subtle
exception" not worthy of review? Would your opinion change if the
non-free license had said "public redistribution of this source code
via the Internet is not permitted"?
> These things are *guidelines*, they're not pedantically correct rules:
> adding some explicit exceptions *weakens* their utility, it doesn't
> improve it.
I disagree. I think we need to apply the DFSG fairly and consistently,
so that software authors and package maintainers know what to expect.
If we elect to make exceptions to the DFSG, we should be forthright
about these exceptions and not hide them from review by the public, let
alone our own developers.
> If the present contents of main comes under review because of these
> changes, then they're *bad* changes to make, in that they have a wider
> effect than they should
I disagree with this premise. It is not and will not be a goal of my
proposal to pour cement of the current contents of main, grandfathering
the presence of any package in there, even if we'd otherwise reject it
for violating the DFSG.
> (which is, again, aiui, just to clarify our stance on licenses, and
> allow FDL-licensed stuff to enter main in the usual case).
I'm not sure what the "usual case" for FDL-licensed stuff is. I think
the sample size is, to date, too small to judge that. Do/will most
licensors avail themselves of Invariant Sections and Cover Texts? I
don't think we have enough data on this yet. Even the FSF, as far as I
can tell, has not relicensed all of their manuals under the GNU FDL yet,
though I hasten to add that I'm just using what's currently in main to
determine this; I haven't checked upstream CVS for all GNU projects.
If you're interested in some quick empirical data...
Source packages that appear to be using the GNU FDL -- or trying to --
in main already include the following:
texinfo
Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document
under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.1 or
any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no
Invariant Sections, with the Front-Cover texts being ``A GNU
Manual'', and with the Back-Cover Texts as in (a) below. A copy of the
license is included in the section entitled ``GNU Free Documentation
License'' in the Emacs manual.
(a) The FSF's Back-Cover Text is: ``You have freedom to copy and modify
this GNU Manual, like GNU software. Copies published by the Free
Software Foundation raise funds for GNU development.''
ddd
The DDD Manual is released under the GNU Free Documentation License, version
1.1. A copy of this license can be found in COPYING.DOC.
dict-vera
Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document
under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.1 or
any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no
Invariant Sections, with no Front-Cover Texts, and with no Back-Cover
Texts. A copy of the license is included in the info directory in the
section entitled "GNU FDL", and in /usr/share/doc/[dict-]vera/GFDL.
*** Packages below this point make no reference to the GNU FDL is made in
*** packages' debian/copyright files. I consider this a bug.
bison
Permission is granted to copy and distribute modified versions of
this manual under the conditions for verbatim copying, provided also
that the sections entitled "GNU General Public License" and "Conditions
for Using Bison" are included exactly as in the original, and provided
that the entire resulting derived work is distributed under the terms
of a permission notice identical to this one.
[The info file appears to be corrupt; there is a node for the GNU Free
Documentation License, but none of these nodes appear to exist. Neither info
nor pinfo would browse bison's info documentation, though a top-level index
entry existed for it.]
emacs21
Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document
under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.1 or
any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with the
Invariant Sections being "The GNU Manifesto", "Distribution" and "GNU
GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE", with the Front-Cover texts being "A GNU
Manual," and with the Back-Cover Texts as in (a) below. A copy of the
license is included in the section entitled "GNU Free Documentation
License."
(a) The FSF's Back-Cover Text is: "You have freedom to copy and
modify this GNU Manual, like GNU software. Copies published by the Free
Software Foundation raise funds for GNU development."
fileutils
Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document
under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.1 or
any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no
Invariant Sections, with no Front-Cover Texts, and with no Back-Cover
Texts. A copy of the license is included in the section entitled "GNU
Free Documentation License".
gawk
Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document
under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.1 or
any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with the
Invariant Sections being "GNU General Public License", the Front-Cover
texts being (a) (see below), and with the Back-Cover Texts being (b)
(see below). A copy of the license is included in the section entitled
"GNU Free Documentation License".
a. "A GNU Manual"
b. "You have freedom to copy and modify this GNU Manual, like GNU
software. Copies published by the Free Software Foundation raise
funds for GNU development."
gdb
Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document
under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.1 or
any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with the
Invariant Sections being "A Sample GDB Session" and "Free Software",
with the Front-Cover texts being "A GNU Manual," and with the
Back-Cover Texts as in (a) below.
(a) The FSF's Back-Cover Text is: "You have freedom to copy and
modify this GNU Manual, like GNU software. Copies published by the Free
Software Foundation raise funds for GNU development."
[The stabs documentation is separately licensed as follows.]
Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document
under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.1 or
any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with the
Invariant Sections being "Stabs Types" and "Stabs Sections", with the
Front-Cover texts being "A GNU Manual," and with the Back-Cover Texts
as in (a) below.
(a) The FSF's Back-Cover Text is: "You have freedom to copy and
modify this GNU Manual, like GNU software. Copies published by the Free
Software Foundation raise funds for GNU development."
[I have to wonder if the technical information contained in "Stabs
Types" and "Stabs Section" complies with the intent of the Invariant
Sections clause of the GNU FDL.]
gnugo
[Contains a copy of GNU FDL but does not indicate what parts of the work
are licensed under it, nor identifies what, if any, Invariant Sections
or Cover Texts the GNU Go documentation has.]
glibc
Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document
under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.1 or
any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with the
Invariant Sections being "Free Software Needs Free Documentation" and
"GNU Lesser General Public License", the Front-Cover texts being (a)
(see below), and with the Back-Cover Texts being (b) (see below). A
copy of the license is included in the section entitled "GNU Free
Documentation License".
(a) The FSF's Front-Cover Text is:
A GNU Manual
(b) The FSF's Back-Cover Text is:
You have freedom to copy and modify this GNU Manual, like GNU
software. Copies published by the Free Software Foundation raise
funds for GNU development.
tar
Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document
under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.1 or
any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no
Invariant Sections, with no Front-Cover Texts, and with no Back-Cover
Texts. A copy of the license is included in the section entitled "GNU
Free Documentation License".
wget
Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document
under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.1 or
any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with the
Invariant Sections being "GNU General Public License" and "GNU Free
Documentation License", with no Front-Cover Texts, and with no
Back-Cover Texts. A copy of the license is included in the section
entitled "GNU Free Documentation License".
--
G. Branden Robinson | "To be is to do" -- Plato
Debian GNU/Linux | "To do is to be" -- Aristotle
branden@debian.org | "Do be do be do" -- Sinatra
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |
Attachment:
pgprb8rvB9fk8.pgp
Description: PGP signature