Re: [prePROPOSAL] DFSG (draft 7)
I don't find anything here that isn't covered in the current DFSG. The
wording is much more confusing on issues that should be cut and dried.
I have taken the time to point these out below:
On Thu, 18 Feb 1999, Darren Benham wrote:
> I didn't get many comments on Draft #6. Either it got lost in the noise or
> we're about ready to submit the proposal to the vote system. Please, if you
> have a comment on the wording (not whether the DFSG needs to be changed... just
> what you might change it to if the consesus is it does need to be changed)
> email me. If there's not a lot that needs to be looked at, we'll start the
> process RSN.
>
> - Darren
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Debian Free Software Guidelines
> -------------------------------
>
> Anthony Towns <ajt@debian.org>
> Darren Benham <gecko@debian.org>
>
> draft version 2.7.1 19 February 1999
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> Copyright Notice
> ----------------
>
> copyright ©1999 Anthony Towns & Darren Benham
>
> This document is free software; you may redistribute it verbatim in
This statement is self contradictory. Verbatim is often used as equal to
unmodifiable.
> any format. You may modify this document and redistribute it in any
> form so long as you change the title of this document. You may use
> parts of this document for any purpose.
>
> This is distributed _without any warranty_; without even the implied
> warranty of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose.
>
> This document, in it's source form, exists in DebianDoc format.
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> Contents
> --------
>
> 1. Introduction
> 1.1. Application
>
> 2. Freedoms
> 2.1. Use
> 2.2. Source Code
> 2.3. Modification
> 2.4. Derivation
> 2.5. Distribution
> 2.6. Termination of License
>
> 3. Restrictions
> 3.1. Notices of Authorship
> 3.2. Misrepresentation of Authors
> 3.3. License of Derived Works (deprecated)
> 3.4. Restrictions on charges (deprecated)
> 3.5. Availability of source code
> 3.6. Integrity of the Original Work
>
> 4. Exceptions
>
> 5. Notes
> 5.1. Deprecated
> 5.2. Non-binding Requests
> 5.3. Weaker Restrictions
> 5.4. Example Licenses
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> 1. Introduction
> ----------------
>
> The Debian Free Software Guidelines define what it means for software
> to be free as far as the Debian project is concerned. Software that
> follows these guidelines is termed "DFSG-free".
>
So what do we call software that follows the original DFSG?
> These guidelines are separated into three sections: a list of freedoms
> we require of DFSG-free software and a list of restrictions on those
> freedoms that we are willing to accept. At the end, are further
> restrictions for some special forms of software.
>
>
> 1.1. Application
> ----------------
>
> These guidelines are intended to be applied to software in any form.
> This includes documentation, documents, graphics, scripts, binary
> executables, data, license, etc.
Equating all intelectual property with software is backwards. Software
should equate with speech and performance art. It is that association that
groups it in the same class as documents, graphics, and data. Binary
executables are the performance, covered under the license, but not the
copyright. Scripts are software, and licenses are documents.
The given list muddies the waters, rather than clarifies your intent.
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> 2. Freedoms
> ------------
>
>
> 2.1. Use
> --------
>
> Anyone must be able to use the software in any way without paying a
> fee or royalty or performing any special actions.
>
"performing any special actions" is pretty ambiguous. Is compilation or
invocation considered "special actions"?
>
> 2.2. Source Code
> ----------------
>
> Source code must be freely available if it exists. Source code refers
> to the form used to make changes to the software.
>
Sorce code refers to the actual material that is covered by the copyright.
>
> 2.3. Modification
> -----------------
>
> Anyone must be able to modify the software.
I believe that the correct work here is "allowed" not "able". Many people
with access to source code, a computer, and a compilation environement are
still unable to modify software.
>
>
> 2.4. Derivation
> ---------------
>
> Anyone must be able to use parts of the software in their own work.
So the GPL is no longer considered free software by these guidelines.
I can not include parts of a GPL licensed source into my non-GPL work.
>
>
> 2.5. Distribution
> -----------------
>
> Anyone must be able to give away or sell copies of the software and
> sources without paying a fee or royalty. However, nobody can be
> required to distribute the software. This includes modified or derived
> work.
In fact, the source availability clause requires that you distribute the
source (the true copyright material) whenever you distribute a derived
binary from that source.
>
>
> 2.6. Termination of License
> ---------------------------
>
> The license must remain valid until the licensee terminates it or
> violates the terms of the license.
>
The licensee (the copyright holder who assignes the license to the
software) is incapable of violating his on license terms. Termination of
the license can only be granted by the copyright holder.
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> 3. Restrictions
> ----------------
>
>
> 3.1. Notices of Authorship
> --------------------------
> The license may require the copyright, license, and any associated
> disclaimers be prominently displayed in the modified software or any
> derived software. The license may require such notices to be
> displayed: (in order of preference)
>
> * wherever the modified/derived software displays copyrights
>
> * in the source code or documentation
>
> * during execution of interactive software
>
> * in advertising materials (deprecated)
Other reasonable requirements are not covered here, such as unmodified
source, which the current DFSG allows.
>
>
>
> 3.2. Misrepresentation of Authors
> ---------------------------------
>
> The license may restrict the use of names and trademarks of the
> copyright holders in association with modifications of the original
> software.
>
>
> 3.3. License of Derived Works (deprecated)
> ------------------------------------------
>
> The license can impose license requirements on modified and derived
> software as long as the result still meets these guidelines.
What does this mean?
>
> The license can impose license restrictions on the third party
> components (such as libraries) necessary to compile the software as
> long as the restrictions are compatible with the original license.
>
Which "original license"?
> The license may not impose restrictions on third-party software that
> merely resides on the same system or distribution as the licensed
> software.
>
This has ramifications that aren't clear.
>
> 3.4. Restrictions on charges (deprecated)
> -----------------------------------------
>
> The license can restrict the amount charged for the software itself if
> reasonable distribution fees are allowed. It may not place
> restrictions on either fees charged for other software in a
> distribution or the cost of a distribution as a whole.
>
I realise that this refers to, among other things, the Artistic license.
While I do not particularly like this license, I do consider it to be
free.
Using the term "deprecated" on several of these items, means that licenses
that are currently considered free either get "grandfathered" into the
system, or at some time in the future be come non-free. Neither of these
is acceptable, as one takes software that was once considered free and
makes it not free in the future, while the other takes software that has
an equivalent license to one that we consider free, but is now not
acceptable for "new" software.
>
> 3.5. Availability of source code
> --------------------------------
>
> The license may require that distributors make a reasonable effort to
> provide source code of versions of the software they distribute.
>
But not make it a condition of distribution? This defeats the whole
purpose of source code availability.
>
> 3.6. Integrity of the Original Work
> -----------------------------------
>
> The license may use any of the following methods to ensure the
> integrity of the original work:
>
> 3.6.1. Change log
> -----------------
> A summary of modifications made to the software may be required in:
>
> * the source code of the modified software.
>
> * documentation accompanying the modified software.
>
>
> 3.6.2. Versioning and Renaming
> ------------------------------
>
> Modified software may be required to use a version number or name
> different from the official release.
>
> 3.6.3. Concurrent Installation (deprecated)
> -------------------------------------------
>
> Modified software may be required to be able to exist on the same
> system as the official release of the software.
>
> 3.6.4. Original source (deprecated)
> -----------------------------------
>
> Distribution of modified software may be required to be accompanied by
> an offer to distribute the original source code.
>
Not only is this deprecated, which I find objectionable, but it also
doesn't have any teeth in it to start with.
Requirement of pristine source distribution restricts none of the freedoms
that we are promoting and provides assured access to the original work.
> 3.6.5. Patch clause (deprecated)
> --------------------------------
>
> Source level modifications may be required to be distributed as the
> original source with a list of differences.
>
I know what you are trying to avoid here, but it seems that you avoid a
bunch of other things as well, by being too specific here.
Can I require original source code be available and not require that you
deliver your mods via diff/patch?
If I allow a CVS repository to act as the distribution point for the
modified source, so long as the original source tree can be extracted from
the archives, is this the patch clause in action, or some other clause in
this definition?
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> 4. Exceptions
> -------------
>
> Personal opinions, standards documents and licenses do not have to
> give permission to modify (See Modification under Freedoms).
Does my book about Debian fall under personal opinions? It sounds like my
book would be free if it allowed other than Linux Press to sell printed
versions. Is this true? (the book contains many personal opinions about
Debian, as well as some useful technical information. How does this
exception apply to such works?)
>
> To be clear, this does *not* apply to works of art, documentation,
> executables, source code (put more here).
What does not apply to works of art? Are you saying that art work can not
be protected from modification and still be considered free? That means
that a logo can not be protected and remain free.
>
> _To go along with this, Policy would be changed to create a verbatim
> section. Into this section would go any software that makes use of
> this exception. Also, any license that is DFSG but the text of the
> license itself is not can be put into this section._
>
This is really confusing. Is verbatim software free?
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> 5. Notes
> --------
>
> This section, "Notes" is an explanation section to help clarify the
> above document. It should not contain anything that's not above and
> the document above should be able to stand on it's own without the
> "notes" section
It doesn't.
>
>
> 5.1. Deprecated
> ---------------
>
> By deprecated, we mean this is allowed but discourage and disliked.
> These items may be removed in future versions. Also, software without
> deprecated clauses is recommended over software that has licenses with
> such clauses.
>
So there are levels of freeness described herein who's relative merits an
value are deprecated as well? This is a guideline for discrimination that
has no value to me, or to the freedoms that I cherish in free software.
>
> 5.2. Non-binding Requests
> -------------------------
>
> The license may make any number of non-binding requests. These should
> be clearly separated from the binding section of the license.
Licenses are legal descriptions of what you may, and may not, do with the
licensed material. There are no such things as "non-binding requests" with
requard to a license, you either regulate the behaviour or you don't.
>
>
> 5.3. Weaker Restrictions
> ------------------------
>
> The license have less restrictive versions of the restrictions listed
> here.
>
This isn't a grammatical sentance. What does this statement say?
>
> 5.4. Example Licenses
> ---------------------
> As examples, we consider the following licenses DFSG-free:
>
> * the MIT/X Consortium License
>
> * the Artistic License
>
> * the GNU General Public License v2 (GPL)
>
> * the GNU Library General Public License v2 (LGPL)
>
> * the BSD License
>
> * the Mozilla Public License v1.0 (MPL)
>
> * the Q Public License v0.92 (QPL)
>
> _This list is a list of possibilities. Before the document would be
> released, the list would be modified to mention the licenses that
> truly do fit_
>
The terms that I saw above would remove about half of the licenses from
this list, including several that we consider very free.
This document is much more confusing than the original that it proports to
replace. I couldn't vote for this in any respects.
Waiting is,
Dwarf
--
_-_-_-_-_- Author of "The Debian Linux User's Guide" _-_-_-_-_-_-
aka Dale Scheetz Phone: 1 (850) 656-9769
Flexible Software 11000 McCrackin Road
e-mail: dwarf@polaris.net Tallahassee, FL 32308
_-_-_-_-_-_- If you don't see what you want, just ask _-_-_-_-_-_-_-
Reply to: