Re: Social Contract GR's Affect on sarge
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: Re: Social Contract GR's Affect on sarge
- From: Gunnar Wolf <email@example.com>
- Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2004 18:40:01 -0600
- Message-id: <[🔎] 20040501004000.GE17320@gwolf.org>
- In-reply-to: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- References: <20040427172026.GP16797@rembrandt.csv.ica.uni-stuttgart.de> <20040429074915.GN20924@grep.be> <E1BJ7AP-0000jQemail@example.com> <20040429090624.GX2365@zewt.org> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com>
Manoj Srivastava dijo [Fri, Apr 30, 2004 at 05:57:18PM -0500]:
> > I want to distinguish between software and other data because I
> > prefer to use English in a precise way, and because I think that is
> There is wide support for software being defined as !hardware,
> and that can make for a pretty precise use of the language as well.
At first this seemed too strange for me, but I must admit I agree :)
> I prefer
> Freedoms for Documentation
> Analogous to the software program freedoms, we need to articulate the freedoms
> required for the subset of software called documentation.
The only problem I see in your text it that it seems crafted
specifically to counter the GFDL. I agree in principle, but the
wording should be changed - I agree, the GFDL gives us many points on
which to stand to criticize what should _not_ be required in a
DFSG-free license, but this could lead us to a definition too narrow,
allowing for abuse somewhere/somehow. And, let's not forget, we are
under negotiations with the FSF - I would rather not take a stance
that is so aggressive they feel insulted and don't want to work with
our representants to reach a solution.
> 2. The freedom to study how the text is written, and adapt it to your needs.
> Access to the text in the preferred form for modification is a precondition
> for this. This includes the ability to modify the work to fit in low memory
> situations, reference cards, PDA's, embedded devices, etc.
> 3. Freedom to reformat the document into a preferred format or medium
> (converting to braille, or speech, or hardcopy, or postscript, etc).
> 6. Freedom to translate the text into any other language.
Very nice wording and explanation. This would enable us getting rid of
massive invariant sections. In fact... Probably we could suggest FSF
to replace the invariant sections idea with an invariant (or at least,
irreductible) list of links to important related documents?
> 7. The freedom to keep your modifications, or even your possession of a copy
> of the text, confidential.
This is the one that bugs me. I understand we need this, but... I
would rather _exclude_ the unencrypted requirement from the GFDL than
add this specific text. I like the example of the Dissident
Test... But probably this point -which will probably be too obnoxious
for the strong anti-DRM people- could be included in point 2, if we
ask for the document to be stored 'in any suitable kind and format of
media'. This might be too broad, but we will start seeing (at least,
we might start seeing) encrypted USB media. Heck, I can format my USB
key to be encrypted media. We can thus make the text of your proposal
not (explicitly) require the controversial confidentiality, but
disallow a license not passing the Dissident Text :)
Gunnar Wolf - firstname.lastname@example.org - (+52-55)5630-9700 ext. 1366
PGP key 1024D/8BB527AF 2001-10-23
Fingerprint: 0C79 D2D1 2C4E 9CE4 5973 F800 D80E F35A 8BB5 27AF