Re: Inconsistencies in our approach
>> Can I take this, then, as an admission that we willfully distribute
>non-free
>> software in main, and intend to continue doing so, because we
>perceive
>a
>> lack of alternatives? (In the form of, for instance, public domain
>> software)
>
>I should have put "software" in quotes, because I ask the question
>using
>the
>definition of those that would define software as any bits of data that
>we
>distribute, and thus place all bits of data we distribute, including
>RFCs
>and the GPL, under the auspices of the GPL. I do not ascribe to that
>view,
>but I'm trying to push it to its logical conclusion.
I think indeed that Debian is willfully distributing non-free software
in main.
I certainly perceive a lack of alternatives.
I would probably be OK with an amendment saying "Debian will remain
99.99999% free software". ;-) More honest, really. It would still be
better than anyone else.
An amendment saying "Debian will remain free software, except for the
prologue of the GPL, which we wish was free but isn't," would be even better.
(This would be a compromise, much like the patch-requirement clause.)
Or, to be sillier, Debian could drop the GPL from Debian proper, but
require anyone downloading any part of Debian to first download the
non-free GPL text. This could actually be done....
However, I think a lot of this is missing the point. Any bits on
a computer are software. But perhaps not all software requires
the same freedoms to be fully free. Shall I attempt to apply/adapt the
FSF's 'four freedoms' to documentation, and to licenses?
* The freedom to run the program, for any purpose
This should translate to:
* The freedom to read the documentation, for any purpose
GFDL seems OK here.
Or to:
* The freedom to apply the license, for any purpose
GPL is fine there.
* The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your
needs.
This should translate to:
* The freedom to study how the documentation works, and adapt it to your
needs.
"Adapt it to your needs" is violated by the FDL "Invariant Section"
requirements. Notably, the 'embedded' and 'reference card' examples
apply (although RMS espoused a interesting theory involving "multiple
volumes").
It's also very unclear whether it's satsified by embedding the
documentation into a program. (What must you do with the Invariant Section?
What the heck is a 'front-matter section' or 'named appendix' in a
program anyway?)
It's also violated whenever Invariant Sections are inaccurate. It is
then impossible to make a fully accurate manual (which is a very
reasonable need). There is absolutely no legal way to make a derivative
of the technical text in the manual, under the GFDL, without including
the "Invariant Section".
The GFDL clause about 'not using technical measures to obstruct or
control the reading or further copying of copies you make or distribute'
is a very definite violation of this, now that I look at it.
If your needs involve putting a copy on a restricted-access location,
you can't. (The words 'make or' need to be stricken from that clause.)
Of course, you also can't adapt the technical material to use it in a
treatise on the subject of any of the Invariant Sections.
Yes, freedom 1 is definitely the one the GFDL violates big time.
This also translates to:
* The freedom to study how the license works, and adapt it to your
needs.
Yep, you can do that with the GPL. This isn't even violated if the
prologue is inaccurate, because use of the GPL's terms to create a new
license is explicitly allowed.
* The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor
Yeah, this is fine everywhere. But oodles of non-free stuff satisfies
*this*.
* The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to
the public, so that the whole community benefits
This translates to:
* The freedom to improve the documentation, and release your
improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits
Well, the GFDL sometimes allows this. But not if the improvement
involves removing inaccurate Invariant Sections and Cover Texts. Or for
that matter irrelevant Invariant Sections (which are at least
somewhat irrelevant by definition!).
This also translates to:
* The freedom to improve the license, and release your
improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits
The GPL as a license text only partly satisfies this. Specifically, the
prologue can't be improved and released to the public. But at least
it satisfies the rest. :-/ As a *license* at least, it can be improved
and released to the public.
Incidentally, freedom 3 is one which the RFC's verbatim-only
license violates big time:
* The freedom to improve the standard, and release your
improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits
--
Nathanael Nerode <neroden at gcc.gnu.org>
http://home.twcny.rr.com/nerode/neroden/fdl.html
Reply to: