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

[Sunnanvind Fenderson <sunnanvind@fenderson.com>]

Marcus wrote:
> Right, RMS changed his opinion on this license shortly before the debate
> happened here. 

So I noticed. That's how it goes, sometimes.

> Which is interesting, because I tend to disagree that it is
> free, but oh well ;)

In my (previously stated, for those keeping count) opinion, it had
the same problem as the Apple "free" license, which inconsequently
enough is and was listed as non-free the whole time.

I'm glad the issue seems resolved now, as I too disliked the
sending-in-the-patches requirement.

> > The old BSD
> > (obnoxiuous ad clause) is and was listed as free (but
> > GPL-incompatible), while it's been considered DFSG-nonfree.
> 
> It is?  I am surprised, because I think I remember that we used to
> distribute BSD licensed software in Debian before the ad clause was removed?
> Or do you mean that only afterwards it was considered nonfree?

Actually, someone (I guess I'll have to do it) needs to check this
up. I think it was brought up during the Zope discussion and during
the discussion of that program that messed up spambots (name escapes
me at the moment).

> Note: I am happy with software that has such obnoxious ad clauses being
> considered DFSG-nonfree, I just try to remember how it used to be.

While I think that the required "powered-by"-button of zope is
dreadful, I don't really have much of a problem with the old BSD-ad
clause, and I don't really see how the DFSG is interpreted to make
that non-free (that's why I think I might be in error when I seem to
recall that it's been called non-free). It's very obnoxious, though,
and we're all better of without it.

> Well, it is a fact that it tries to be more detailed and fails.  However, I
> think the reason was the Debian left GNU and then probably felt the need to
> establish their own independent rules.  Which is a pity because the
> differences are so small, and a lot of effort is put into discussing such
> issues, which could simply be saved by following the FSF's view on it, plus
> maybe documenting exceptions where they are truly wanted.  Then we only
> would need to argue about the differences.  This would have the additional
> effect of making the differences transparent.

I agree with you about only arguing about the differences instead of
seemingly different things that in reality is exactly the same. (NB: I
also see Branden's point when he says that we should not just blindly
accept everything the FSF says. I do disagree with some of his
arguments against the FSF, though. Or something.)

Though the four freedoms of the FSF is a political statement. "These
are rights everyone should have when it comes to functional software"
- they're easily understandable and they're useful for advocacy and
explaining free software.

Debian "needs" more detailed guidelines (that's why I was somewhat
involved the recent attempts to clarify the DFSG wrt invariant
sections) in order to make consistent, understandable judgement about
what goes into non-free and what goes into main. I figure that the FSF
have some long, opaque guidelines hidden in their vaults somewhere
that their lawyer(s) use to decide what goes on the free-list and what
doesn't.

"Needs" is in quotation marks because sometimes I'm in an extra
eristic mood and feel that all the politics is a waste of time and we
should just distribute and package up all the software we want to
without being subject to "their" (copyrighters) rules, which is
arguably all make-believe anyway. Other days I find that it would be
better to beat them on their terms and so those days I delve into
politics and licensing issues and clarifying guidelines. I'm not very
consequent.

> > Sunnanvind (headache and hungry and mad at school. Hope it doesn't
> > shine through.)
> 
> Didn't notice until now.  Food, sleep and hacking should help :)

Yeah, it did for a while, but then I slipped on the icy roads in the
port and hit my head in the asphalt, so I'm a bit shaken, and I've
been involved in the nastiest polygonal relationship drama
ever, meanwhile I have to learn all of the SMTP and pop3 protocols for
school (sounds easy, but I've never read an RFC before). My life is a
soap. I'm a whiner. I'll shut up now.

Thanks and aehiilrs,
Sunnanvind