Re: Gnus Manual License
Hubert Chan <hubert@uhoreg.ca> writes:
> On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 00:29:21 +0200, David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org> said:
>
>> Hubert Chan <hubert@uhoreg.ca> writes:
>>> 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.
>
> Well, they are not actually demanding that I make false claims.
> They are demanding that if I modify, then I will have to make false
> claims. Which is a different matter, and I do not see as a general
> waiver. If I cannot legally satisfy the conditions of the license,
> then I cannot redistribute.
But you can satisfy the conditions of the license.
> To take a more extreme example, if I release something under a
> license that states that if you redistribute it, then you have to
> kill me, does that mean that I have just given everyone permission
> to kill me, or does that mean that nobody is legally allowed to
> redistribute?
You are making yourself ridiculous. For one thing, the "victim" of
the "false claim" is just the FSF, and nobody else. And killing a
person is a criminal offense actionable by the state. "A GNU Manual"
would be, at best, a trademark violation. This is not a criminal, but
a civil offense, and the "damaged" party is the FSF itself.
If you lose the key to your appartment and let a key service open your
door, you can't afterwards sue them for breaking the lock: they were
acting on your behalf and request. Similarly, the FSF can't sue you
for tacking "A GNU manual" on a publication of yours when they
requested you to do that.
> Or, a different example, if I have two pieces of software, A and B,
> both copyrighted by the same person, and A is licensed under the
> GPL, and B is under some proprietary non-free license, then if I
> want to combine A and B, and release it to the public, then the
> copyright holder, by releasing A under the GPL, _demands_ that I
> also release the combined work under the GPL. So would you say that
> I now have the copyright holder's permission to release the combined
> work under the GPL, or am I not legally allowed to release the
> combined work at all?
But we are not talking about this case. But you don't have the
copyright holder's permission to combine those pieces of software.
And you don't have the copyright holder's permission to redistribute
any such combination to the public. In contrast, the GFDL is a
permission to release a modified work to the public, stating the
required conditions.
You are really talking complete nonsense.
> As anyone who has taken a logic course
Which you probably really should.
>> 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.
>
> Is this an official statement on behalf of the FSF, or is this just
> your opinion based on your understanding of the license?
This is far too silly to require an official statement. Unless I get
some evidence that anybody except yourself does even remotely consider
this nonsensical interpretation possible, I won't bother anybody at
the FSF with that. Feel free to ask yourself at copyright-clerk at
gnu dot org in order to get an official statement.
But it really is nonsensical, since the official statement already
exists in the form of the license text.
You may copy and distribute a Modified Version of the Document
under the conditions of sections 2 and 3 above, provided that you
release the Modified Version under precisely this License, with
the Modified Version filling the role of the Document, thus
licensing distribution and modification of the Modified Version to
whoever possesses a copy of it. In addition, you must do these
things in the Modified Version: [...]
That is a _license_, a waiver of pursuing copyright interests. It
does not demand any factual connection between cover texts and
contents.
>>>> 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.
>
> (Of course, this puts the FSF in a rather odd situation, if they
> ever want to take parts of "'A GNU Manual' '(at one time)'" and
> incorporate it back into their own work.
That is the problem of the FSF, not of yourself. You really are fond
of purporting to act in the interest of the FSF by not wanting to
follow the license. It is none of your business to worry about the
bad effects _to_ the FSF that a demand _from_ the FSF might have.
>> 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.
>
> Sorry, by "less free", I meant in terms of guaranteeing continued
> freedom (and yes, it was a poor choice of words). I don't see the
> GFDL as providing any more significant protection of freedoms.
The FSF does, and the FSF sets the licenses for the works it has
copyright for. They accept external input during that process, but at
the end of the day, it is not your or Debian's business to worry about
whether a license achieves the particular goal that the FSF wants from
it. The one thing you need to worry about is whether it conflicts
with your own goals.
>> 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.
>
> Straw man. I'm not talking about picking off a random license and
> attaching it to whatever you download from Debian. I'm talking
> about getting permission from the copyright holder, which they have
> already given you.
Wrong. The copyright holder gives his permissions only to copies he
distributed himself. That the copyright holder at some point of time
or other gave somebody else a license with different conditions does
not mean that you can give yourself that license on a whim. Not even
when the copyright holder permitted some other party to redistribute.
_IF_ and only if you got your copy _accompanied_ by a license and
_understood_ to be under such a license, _then_ you have the right to
redistribute under the conditions granted by that license.
But you can't just say "well, I know somebody who got this under the
GPL once by paying a lot of money, so I can just tack the GPL onto my
copy and pretend I got it from him".
>> If Debian licensed software to you under the GPL, you _can't_ just
>> pass it on under a different license.
>
> A license is permission from the copyright holder to perform certain
> actions with the work beyond what copyright law allows.
And it is a permission given _specifically_ to a recipient of the
software, for example by getting paid for it.
I am a developer of Free Software myself, and I get _paid_ for it.
You can't just hack into my server and steal the software, claiming
that because I licensed it to somebody under the GPL, anybody should
be able to attach the GPL to a copy he has acquired without a license.
_IF_ and only if a customer of mine chooses to pass a copy on,
including uploading it to a public server, you are free to use it
under the license you received it. But you are not free to steal a
copy and self-license it to you.
> If you want to talk about stupid lawsuits, "You downloaded the
> document from Debian instead of from the FSF, therefore you can't
> use the GFDL" is a far more stupid lawsuit than "You can't call a
> non-GNU manual 'A GNU Manual'" (which actually is a valid
> complaint).
I beg to disagree. If Debian has relicensed the document properly
under the GPL only (which means adjusting all licensing notices to
reflect the change in order not to confuse people), then I am _not_
permitted to change everything back and issue myself a GFDL. For
example, if I want to use the exact version distributed in Debian, and
this version is no longer available by the FSF (since the FSF has
decided to remove all documentation licensed under GFDL 1.2 from their
servers), then I can't just reengineer a copy into the original state
and reattach a license that has been removed in a legally valid way.
Your arguments don't hold water, left and right.
>> ... And given the amount of hostility of Debian developers towards
>> the GFDL, it is not unlikely at all that exactly this would happen.
>
> Actually, given that Debian developers are supposed to pass their
> changes upstream, and work closely with upstream as much as
> possible, this is highly unlikely.
Debian developers having their own work licensed under the GFDL?
> And Debian developers are, for the most part, not hostile to the
> GFDL. Most are hostile to non-modifiable bits being included within
> Debian, which the GFDL allows under certain circumstances. If
> you'll recall the GR, Debian voted to allow GFDLed documentation if
> it didn't have any invariant sections.
In a vote that did not leave an option for minimal front- and
backcover texts like those used by the GNU project.
I am maintainer of AUCTeX. The documentation of AUCTeX has been just
relicensed under the GFDL with no invariant sections and, at my
special request, without prescriped front and back cover texts. We
have one Debian developer on board who is known for trying to follow
DFSG guidelines. This developer has voiced his extreme displeasure of
having contributed to the manual in the past (assigning copyright to
his contributions) without realizing it might get licensed under the
GFDL in the manner Debian voted to allow into main, and explicitly
stated that he will not contribute anything further to AUCTeX's
documentation as long as it licensed under the GFDL, regardless of
whether it does or does not contain any unmodifiable text.
I don't consider him at all untypical for a politically active Debian
developer and respect his conscience and decision. I also offered to
him to have previous contributions of him which he would not have made
and assigned to the FSF, had he realized that the manual could at one
point end up being GFDLed, removed and replaced, and he told me not to
bother for past contributions. If he were extremist in his opinions
(which I would still be willing to respect), he'd certainly have made
use of that offer.
So just judging from factual experience I have as project maintainer
with Debian developers, I can tell you that your assurances about
Debian developers in general don't hold. Even a Debian vote does not
assure that the people ending up in a minority position of a vote will
be interested in implementing or supporting what others have decided.
>> Why should Debian be able to remove the way the FSF provided for
>> printing a manual?
>
> And again, how does the GPL present insurmountable barriers to mass
> printing?
Maybe you should ask that question to the publishers who refused
printing GNU manuals under simpler licenses. There is a _reason_ that
the GFDL was created.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
Reply to: