[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: license requirements for a book to be in free section

On Tue, Jan 29, 2002 at 12:21:32AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Sven <luther@dpt-info.u-strasbg.fr> writes:
> > And sometimes you get totally ignored, yes, i know, ...
> Um, you didn't get totally ignored.  Your complaint was that you
> didn't get an instant unequivocal answer.

I was speaking about previous questions some years ago :)))

> > I have followed this as best i could, but without letting my other debian
> > tasks aside, and well, there is real life, not everyone can afford to have a
> > debian related pay job like some, ...
> Um, I don't think any of us have that.  Anyway, the thing to do is to
> have a tad of patience.

Ok, ...

> > Well, the only problem we have trully on this point, is that
> > someonbe can take the stuff out of the debian distribution, and make
> > a book of it, adding a one liner to it.
> > If this happen, then surely oreilly will take them to court, if they
> > feel like it, and it is out of our hands.
> If this is a possibility, it is one we cannot tolerate, and so we must
> be sure that O'Reilly will not do so.  If there is any chance they
> will do so, then the package simply cannot be part of Debian.

Yes, i understand. But then it is our job to make the corresponding
clarifications to the DFSG, so people (here Oreilly) know about it well, and
try not to make subtle interpretation that we don't wish about it.

> > And anyway, adding a one liner and publishing it, is not true to the meaning
> > of the first article to the DFSG, it is a play with words, an evasion,
> > whatever, i guess you understand me.
> I think the attempted O'Reilly license is the evasion, the attempt to
> pretend to be a fan of free software while actually undermining it.
> It's a game that O'Reilly is *very* adept at playing.

Well, yes, but then, let's state it clearly, and anyway, letting us open to
misinterpretations only weaken our position

> > Well, why not simply drop this clause, if it can be circumvented easily by
> > adding a one liner, one wonders why it went into the DFSG in the first place,
> > and what we would have to remove from debian if we would remove this clause.
> Meta-discussion, best entertained on the proper lists.  :)  Not here,
> right now.

Not sure, ...

what is the propper list on that ?

The question is that we will block this package from enterring debian because
of a clause which may, maybe, also have blocked other packages which we would
not like being removed. But again, it can be dealt with at another time.

> > Not what is the problem with this ? It adds to the value of debian, adds to
> > the freedom of the users, who may wich to ship only part of it, collect it
> > with other valuable info and so on.
> It's not free.  That's the problem.

Yes, ...

But it depends on the interpretation of the DFSG if it is considered free by
it or not. 

Mmm, i am repeating myself, ...

> > But the non printable clause, to whom does it add freedom, only to those who
> > wqnt to print the book and sell it, i guess it doesn't even block people from
> > printing it for themselves, or joining money to have a set of them printed,
> > where each copy will get to the personal use of the people printing them, and
> > not sold.
> Yes, those people lose.  Those people may well be *you*.  Or others.
> Debian is for *everyone* and not only non-commercial uses.

Well, yes, they may be me, but the other way around, we also loose, but this
is a ideological discution which will not bring anything right now, and which
will only start a long long flamewar on the subject, let's not go into it, i
should not have broached this subject.

But still, what you are opposing here, is the freedom of access to knowledge
to the freedom of making money out of it. Which one do you feel is more
important ? (Sorry, couldn't resist adding one more argument).

> By your argument, we should just add realplayer to Debian!

Mmm, i don't know the licence of realplayer, but i guess you can compile it
from source, modify it as you wish, and distribute it in electronic form ? And
it runs on any arch supported by debian ?

There are many many many layers of non-freeness, let's not compare apples and
oranges ...

> > The only people who will have a problem with this, would be those guys who
> > look at the debian stuff, and say, look at this nice book, let's get it print
> > it withtout change, and sell it to make profit. This kind of behavior adds
> > nothing to the debian community nor to the society in general, it only makes
> > some people richer and that is it. 
> Indeed.  So why is O'Reilly doing it?

Oreilly is a book publishing business, they had this book written, they
published it, they distribute it all over the world, they want to make money
from it, a part of which goes to the authors of the book. 

Debian is a software distribution (or at least that comes closest to what we
do, but i guess we are much more than that, and the guardians of the only tru
way too :))), we deal in free software, and documentation for it in
electronic form, not book publishing.


Sven Luther

Reply to: