Re: DFSG-alikes for non-software? [was Re: DFSG and fonts [was: Bug#91856: Hello]]
On Thu, 5 Apr 2001 idalton@ferret.phonewave.net wrote:
> Thank you for asking, Edmund. Hopefully some discussion will happen
> and more people will become epistemicly aware.
Indeed. This is a topic that really needs some exploration, so I'll take
the opposing viewpoint. I'm having trouble seeing a major philosophical
difference between a painting, a song, a performance of a song, a font and
an application program. To me, they're all data.
IMO Debian should not care about the type of work, only the freedom of it.
In all cases, the author/artist has contributed time, talent, and
creativity.
In all cases, the work is built on other works (no program can be written
without having seen and learned from other programs, no novel can be
written without reading and learning from other novels, no song can be
sung without having heard and learned from other music).
In all cases, the final result exists in the world, and affects the world.
In all cases, the work could be copied/extended/reused/transformed to
further it's effect.
Information wants to be free, regardless of Content-Type.
> I've come up with five types of content data for which I believe
> seperate classes of licensing make sense.
> 0) General-purpose executable code.
> 1) Non-GP code such as downloadable firmware/BIOS images.
> 2) Code metadata such as documentation, copyright, and license.
> 3) Human-parseable data such as images (inc. fonts) and sounds.
> 4) Human-language text (dictionary, fiction, etc) not covered by 2.
How are these different from each other? If freedom is the criterion,
what rights are required to consider object code to be free that are NOT
required to consider a dictionary to be free?
Alternatively, why should the creator of an image deserve to restrict my
use of the image more than the creator of an application should?
As a purely secondary objection, I challenge you to come up with
operational definitions for any of these categories.
> class 1
> * (derived works) I feel it may be so much more important to KNOW that
> the work has been modified by a third party, that these modifications
> be marked so, and accompanied by the unmodified version.
Why? Authors of application code and authors of embedded code (and
authors of novels, for that matter) have exactly the same desires for
credit for their invention and integrity of the work to their audience.
I can't see the distinction.
> * (source code) As firmware is meant to be loaded on a special-purpose
> peripheral device FOR the correct functioning of said device (such as
> a SCSI host adapter) and in general will not work on any different
> device (even a different model of host adapter in extreme case),
> source code is not important in the same way (the firmware binary may
> even BE the source code) and should not be required.
*Choke* This makes zero sense to me. Heck, if you consider my Windows
machine to be a device (which it is), the above means that most Windows
software is special-purpose and can be free without providing source.
Source is required for freedom - it is the base of the ability to know
what the work actually does, and of my ability to modify it to fit my
needs.
> Class 2:
> * (source code) Either plain text or SGML marked-up probably should be
> the prefered form.
Or inline comments in the source, of course. In any case, it should be
available in the same format that the artist uses to create the final
work.
> * (derived works) Presentation translation (such as printing the
> document, formatting it in an alternate documentation format, speaking
> it aloud, etc, should be allowed. Documentation of course should be
> able to be edited for technical accuracy against the code/process
> documented, and be translated. However..
All uses/edits must be allowed. It's of course acceptible (regardless of
the type of content) to forbid the false claim that a modified version is
official and unmodified.
> Class 3:
> * (source code) I'm not sure how this can consistantly apply. I mean
> (being somewhat facetious here) If I distribute an audio file of my
> saying the word 'fnord' does source code mean I have to include a
> duplicate of my body from the torso up? ;)
Clearly, some works have object code that IS the source. Shell scripts,
audio files, etc. I don't see any conflict here.
> * (derived works) Changes in presentation should always be
> allowed. Changes in content, even with a requirement that they be
> marked as 'unofficial' in some way, should be strongly encouraged but
> (possibly) not necessarily required.
All use and modification should be allowed. Requiring a name-change or
notice that accompanies the derived work that this was modified from the
original does not interfere with this.
Note that requiring a notice WITHIN the work can interfere with freedom -
the notice must be allowed to exist out-of-line.
> Class 4:
> * (source code) Probably doesn't even apply. But if it does, plain text
> or SGML marked-up should be the prefered form.
Same as #3 - some works are their own source. But if the work has
different formats for presentation and editing, the editable version is
the source. "Source" perhaps should be defined as "the primary
human-editable form".
> * (derived works) Assuming everything else is met (redistribution, etc)
> and the license allows for changes in presentation, changes in content
> do not have to be allowed, but we should still encourage it.
Nope. This doesn't fly for two reasons. The easy-but-wimpy reason is
that it's very hard to come up with a distinction that is unambigous
between presentation and content.
The real reason it doesn't fly is because that's not free. If I can't
derive from it, use it how I wish, and distribute my changed version, it's
proprietary. It's not free for application code, it's not free for BIOS
code, it's not free for driver code, it's not free for fonts, it's not
free for images, it's not free for songs, it's not free for novels.
I'm not saying they're evil or that I won't use them, just that they're
not free and should be treated as such.
--
Mark Rafn dagon@dagon.net <http://www.dagon.net/>
Reply to: