Re: Results for Debian's Position on the GFDL
On Tue, Mar 14, 2006 at 01:09:43AM +0000, MJ Ray wrote:
> Glenn Maynard <glenn@zewt.org>
> > Debian has labelled a license with serious, onerous practical problems free.
>
> Labelling licences 'free' means little, as the FSF demonstrated
> with the ironic name of the FDL. What matters is whether the software
> under that licence is free software.
Labelling licenses "free" means a lot, if the labelling is accurate. The
FSF's labelling of the GFDL as such was not, precisely *because* works
licensed under the GFDL are not free software. Historically, Debian's
labelling had been, in my view, accurate.
> The practical problems beyond the DFSG have always been something
> we commented in, but not a direct freedom problem themselves. The
> FSF used to do this too - see their criticism of obnoxious
> advertising clauses - instead of using advertising clauses like now.
Free Software goals exist for real, practical reasons. Practical problems
*are* freedom problems. If I can't distribute a piece of software over
HTTPS, or put a password on my FTP server holding it, or chmod o-r it,
the software isn't free because of these fatal practical problems. At
a more elementary level, these problems prevent my effective, free exercise
of the basic freedoms.
(There are plenty of cases in between, of lesser problems that are worth
noting and fixing but not rendering the software non-free. I don't see
how many of the GFDL's problems can be put in that category, while
maintaining any consistency and without diluting the DFSG to uselessness.)
> I think that's a pessmistic, melodramatic interpretation and I hope
> you're wrong.
I acknowledge that it's pessimistic, but my experiences on this topic
lately have strongly suggested that pessimism is much closer to reality
than optimism. Of course, I hope I'm wrong, too.
> More pragmatically, "DFSG-free" was a stupid label for
> licences which helped add to the confusion over whether it was the
> licence or the liberty of the software and users that mattered to us.
The license is--largely[1]--what *determines* the liberty of the software
and its users. The liberty is the important end result, but it's the
licenses that get us there; restrictions placed by licenses (or lack of
licenses) is what obstructs that liberty. "DFSG-free" is not a stupid
label; it was an effective, useful one.
[1] plus other factors, of course, such as third-party patents and
availability of source code
--
Glenn Maynard
Reply to: