Re: Licenses for DebConf6
Scripsit Francesco Poli <frx@winstonsmith.info>
> On Sat, 12 Nov 2005 10:45:35 +0100 Henning Makholm wrote:
>> The conferences I usually publish at always demand an all-out
>> copyright _transfer_. However, in practice they will usually accept a
>> non-exclusive license to print and distribute unmodified copies.
>> I think it would be sad if Debconf required more than that.
> Several distros include non-free software, as long as it's
> distributable.
As does Debian. We just label the non-free software such that users
have an easy way to be sure that they are not using it.
> Debian requires more than that in order to let something enter main.
> Is this sad?
No. I'm not saying at all that papers that are not DFSG-free should
enter main. What gave you that idea?
> I disagree with your calling "licensing in a DFSG-free manner" as
> "giving up rights": this seems to imply that releasing DFSG-free works
> is something wrong or inappropriate.
I am unable to comprehend why you think there is such an implication.
By licencing things in a DFSG-free manner one needs to give up the
right to prevent others from distributing modified versions of the
work. That is a legal fact, not a matter of opinion.
How you can go from a statement of this legal fact to a value
judgement (which the words "wrong" and "inappropriate" are) is beyond
me.
> I would like to see more authors licensing in a DFSG-free manner because
> I want more freedom for the end-users
It's your right to want that, and you are free to encourage authors to
do so. But that is something different from saying that papers with
a cogent technical contribution should be rejected from a conference
simply because their licensing does not live up to your ideals.
> Papers are (most often) documentation: I think that, recently, we
> lack DFSG-free documentation more than DFSG-free programs.
If there's a lack of documentation, by all means encourage people to
write some free documentation. However, I do not think that is
furthered in particular by rejecting papers at at conference.
> Oh my goodness, I'm explaining code reuse and the strengths of free
> software on _two_ Debian mailing lists! :-|
We are talking about conference papers. Not code, not software, not
documentation to be distributed in main.
> These considerations should be seen as well known and obvious here...
They do not mean that we _require_ of anybody that they license their
software under a DFSG-free license. Our position is that software in
this world exists already and already has whatever license its author
is willing to grant. If the license is DFSG-free it is great, and it
can go into main. If it is not, it can (sometimes, guided by purely
practical considerations) be distributed in non-free.
>> How do you conclude that? The conference papers are not going to be
>> part of an operating system that anybody depends on;
> As has already been replied: "says who?".
Says I. Making the proceedings into a package would be pure archive
bloat. A website is much superior for that purpose.
> Some papers could become useful documentation packaged for Debian.
In those cases we should consider their merits as documentation,
_irrespective_ of whether they are also Debconf papers or not.
A paper that is not DFSG-free cannot be used as documentation - this
holds whether or not it is a Debconf paper, and it does not become
DFSG-free simply by being rejected from Debconf.
>> nobody will have a need to go about changing them.
> Again: "says who?".
Says the laws of physics. The conference proceedings is a record of
what was presented at the conference at a definite moment in the past,
and what happened at that moment is not going to change.
> What is born as a paper, can become (part of) a HOWTO or similar
> document.
> Certainly this will never happen, if no permission to modify is granted.
And rejecting the paper from the conference is not going to change that.
>> This is a different situation from documentation of code that _is_
>> in the operating system.
> You seemingly fail to see that the two sets (conference papers and
> documentation in the OS) may overlap.
Of course they may *overlap*. That is fine. But the fact that a paper
is not in the overlap is no reason to reject it.
> What do you think DebConf papers will talk about?
Debian in general. That includes, but is certainly not limited to,
individual pieces of software.
> Papers are generally written *before* the conference takes place, not
> *after* (or does DebConf work the other way around?).
> How can papers talk about "what happened at the conference"?
Because the paper is what is presented at the conference.
>> I don't see how _anyone_ are better served by having an empty slot in
>> the conference instead of a paper, simply because the paper is not
>> modifiable.
> If you see how users are better served by having a non-free package
> moved out of main and possibly not distributed at all by the Debian
> infrastructure (e.g.: Sun's Java), maybe you can catch the analogy...
I cannot see that anyone is better served by having a non-free package
moved out of main and not distrubted at all by the Debian
infrastructure, than by having the non-free package moved out of main
and into non-free.
We sometimes have to not distribute something even in non-free, but
that is either because we don't have the choice, or because nobody
cares enough to do the work.
--
Henning Makholm "... it cannot be told in his own
words because after September 11 he
forgot about keeping his diary for a long time."
Reply to: