Re: Gnus Manual License
Hubert Chan <hubert@uhoreg.ca> writes:
> Sure. You asked in a previous message: "Why should Debian be able
> to remove the way the FSF provided for printing a manual?", and
> based on what you have said, my response is: they can't unless the
> FSF also removes they way they provided for printing a manual
> (e.g. by removing it from their web site/ftp server).
The idea of the General Public Licenses is not that everybody can
distribute whatever they want to, and the responsibility to provide
the source code for it rests legally, morally, and financially only on
the original author. One can have this with BSD-licensed software
already, and the General Public licenses are _not_ based on the model
where upstream has to save the day.
The idea is that software without source code is broken, and it
remains the duty of the redistributor to provide unbroken software.
Not the duty of some original author who might go broke if he had, for
example, to provide the equivalent of source code disks for all of a
popular GNU/Linux distribution.
>> You were making claims about what Debian developers would do, and
>> your claims do not even hold up to the very limited exposure to
>> Debian developers I have. I have a strong counterexample even in
>> that. Whether anecdotal or not, it definitely makes the point that
>> your claims don't hold.
>
> I don't think I ever made claims about _all_ developers. Some
> developers are jerks, and have a bone to pick. Most will act
> reasonably, and try to comply with upstream's wishes as much as they
> can.
I don't consider the Debian developer in question a jerk because he
has a more picky conscience. He has also contributed with helpful
remarks and code and is in general very forthcoming. He also does
serious license auditing in connection with TeXlive, and I don't see
that he has a bone to pick with me or other AUCTeX developers.
I can respect his choices, conscience and views which are shared by
not too few other Debian developers. Even though they don't match
mine and don't exactly make my life easier.
Again: the General Public Licenses were explicitly created in order
not to have to rely on goodwill downstream. They are not BSD-style
licenses.
So it does not really make sense to argue that their purpose is
achieved if they merely allow instead of require cooperative behavior.
>>> story. (And no, I'm not trying to imply some sort if insidious
>>> motivation for the GFDL, just in case you got that impression.)
>
>> Then you should spell out what you think would be the whole story.
>
> No. For one thing, I don't think that my view is relevant to this
> discussion.
Well, I think fire relevant to smoke.
> All I can say is that the GFDL does more than just loosen the source
> code requirements compared to the GPL (e.g. it introduces cover
> texts). And so from what I can tell, the source code requirement is
> probably not the only reason for the creation of the GFDL.
If it were, dual licensing with GPL would be a no-brainer since then
the GPL would be an overall more restrictive option and not
interesting.
I don't see who except you would have declared this straw man fit for
beating.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
Reply to: