Re: Gnus Manual License
Hubert Chan <hubert@uhoreg.ca> writes:
> On Fri, 06 Oct 2006 20:23:35 +0200, David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org> said:
>
>> Hubert Chan <hubert@uhoreg.ca> writes:
>>> On Fri, 06 Oct 2006 08:35:19 +0200, David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org> said:
>>>
>>>> Hubert Chan <hubert@uhoreg.ca> writes:
>>>>> Huh? Are you saying that it's OK to publish some random manual,
>>>>> and state on the cover that it is "A GNU Manual", when it is, in
>>>>> fact, NOT a GNU manual? Is the FSF OK with this?
>>>
>>>> If they put on the cover text, they have to bear the consequences.
>>>> Certainly.
>>>
>>> So if I take a GNU manual, and modify it such that it is no longer a
>>> GNU manual, and still put on the cover that it is "A GNU Manual",
>>> then I'll "have to bear the consequences". Nice.
>
>> This is not what I said. Please reread what I wrote, and reread what
>> you wrote. I think it is obvious that "they" refers to the FSF when
>> there is no other subject in your sentences which it could possibly be
>> referring to.
>
> In that case, what you wrote doesn't make sense to me.
>
> If I make false claims, then the FSF has to bear the consequences?
If they demand that you make false claims, yes, they have to bear the
consequences. You asked "Is the FSF OK with this", and yes, they
_have_ to be OK with this since they demanded you put "A GNU Manual"
on every work derived from the GNU Manual.
So feel free to create a rock song and a cheap novel taking
substantial parts of some GFDLed manual from the GNU project, and tack
"A GNU manual" on the front cover as required.
The FSF has to bear the consequences, yes, because _they_ demanded the
texts to place on any derived work.
>>>>> Independently of copyright law, there are generally laws against
>>>>> using someone else's name to "endorse" your own product without
>>>>> their permission.
>>>
>>>> So what? You do not even have their permission, you have their
>>>> _demand_ to put this cover text on.
>>>
>>> The demand is made under copyright law. I don't see it as a
>>> waiver that prevents me from being sued under other laws.
>
>> There is nothing that ever can prevent you from being sued under
>> any law. But there are cases that are so clear-cut that there is
>> not a chance in hell any judge would rule against you. And if you
>> get sued for actually heeding the license conditions, this is one
>> such case.
>
> I do not see the demand made under copyright law to be a waiver that
> guarantees that any hypothetical case against me would be thrown
> out.
If you act on behalf and according to the explicit demands of the
copyright holder, the copyright holder can't hope to hold this against
you.
> Three words or a zillion texts, I'm just trying to point out the
> situation that it can lead to.
If that's the worst you can point out...
>> certainly much less than in the BSD advertising clause. That is
>> disingenuous.
>
> I never said that I was OK with the BSD advertising clause.
Licenses are always a compromise. The question is not whether the
GFDL is perfect. Or whether it can be improved. The question is
whether it is tolerable. And if not, what parts are missing.
>> Then add "changed outside the GNU project" after it, and nobody
>> need ever add another line in order to keep it true.
>
> "A GNU Manual" "changed outside the GNU project" -- it still claims
> to be a GNU manual.
Then add "(at one time)" after it if that suits you better.
>>>> The problem is that they can subsequently restrict redistribution
>>>> to just a single license. And that means that the protection is
>>>> the minimum of that of GPL and GFDL, not a combination.
>>>
>>> My understanding is that the combined license "A | B" is DFSG free
>>> as long as A or B are DFSG free.
>
> Sorry, I was responding to something else. I'm not sure why I put
> that there. What I was trying to say is that Debian would be still
> free to distribute under a dual GFDL/GPL and still comply with the
> DFSG. And if the documentation was originally distributed under a
> dual license, Debian would probably distribute under the dual
> license, instead of just distributing it under the GPL.
But if some died-in-the-wool package maintainer decided he wants to
throw out the GFDLed version, or some contributor states that he will
only contribute under the GPL, then the material is no longer usable
upstream.
>> Straw man. Why should the FSF be interested in lowering the
>> protection it can provide for software and documentation to remain
>> free?
>
> I don't see how the GPL is any less free than the GFDL.
Straw man. I was not talking about "less free". I was talking about
"less protection". If the FSF was only worried about "less free",
they could use the MIT X11 license and be done with it.
>>>> For example, GFDL-hostile entities like Debian will be free to
>>>> distribute the material GPL-only, meaning that it will become
>>>> impossible to reasonably create printed copies.
>>>
>>> Even in that case, it would only prevent them from creating printed
>>> copies if they obtained the document only from Debian.
>
>> Which is the whole point of the GNU public licenses: your source
>> for the binaries is the channel responsible for providing the
>> source code.
>
> Of course. But they can still obtain a separate license by other
> means.
No. The license is something that accompanies _copies_ and is valid
for _copies_. It is not something you can pick off from anywhere you
want to and attach it to some piece of software.
If Debian licensed software to you under the GPL, you _can't_ just
pass it on under a different license.
> If the documentation is unmodified (which it usually is, in Debian,
> except for possibly a few minor Debian-specific things), they still
> have the FSF's permission to print it under the conditions of the
> GFDL.
But the point is not to be able to get some upstream version of
software. The point is to be able to use the version _as_ _provided_
_by_ Debian, and that requires a license from Debian. If Debian
sublicensed its version of the manual only under the GPL, you are not
legally permitted to pass it on under the GFDL.
> Anyways, you're missing my point. If the FSF distributed their
> documentation under a combined GFDL/GPL license, no freedom would be
> lost compared to if the FSF only distributed their documentation
> under the GFDL.
No freedom would be lost to Debian, but Debian would be free to remove
the possibility of having their modifications available to users under
the GFDL. And given the amount of hostility of Debian developers
towards the GFDL, it is not unlikely at all that exactly this would
happen.
>> If that was something that the FSF was willing to accept, it would
>> not ever have created the GPL but rather went with a free-for-all
>> license like MIT. The reasoning being that since Microsoft would
>> not provide source code anyway, no freedom is lost by handing over
>> all GNU software to be embedded in binary only material.
>
> Straw man. You are comparing Microsoft moving free software into
> proprietary software, with Debian distributing documentation under a
> different-but-still-free license.
Why should Debian be able to remove the way the FSF provided for
printing a manual?
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
Reply to: