Re: could you safely rewrite the DFSG requirement?
Sven <luther@dpt-info.u-strasbg.fr> writes:
> What is written is that free distribution of aggregation with software musrt
> be permitted. And software originally means a significant amount of machine
> code which can be executed somewhere.
Um, no. It doesn't mean "significant". Nowhere in DFSG does the word
"significant" occur. The following is a piece of software:
10 PRINT "HELLO WORLD"
And that's really all it takes.
> Even if we go as far as including documentation as software, it
> still needs to be a meaningfull thing that you aggregate, and not an
> empoty content one liner.
Really? DFSG doesn't say that, and it has never been understood to
say that. Still, the following was famous, and meaningful:
main ()
{
printf ("hello world");
}
I assume that counts as software. If we add that to the manual,
that's an aggregation, and it's even meaningful. I want to make sure
that O'Reilly knows this.
> Also, even if you consider documentation as software, there is
> another obscure interpretational leap from there to considering
> printed documentation as software.
>
> I know many in the free softare community want it to be such, but this is by
> no means a granted interpretation.
People are of two minds about this. Some think that documentation
should be a little looser. I think that that crowd (which once
included me) is losing, as far as Debian is concerned.
Debian distributes only free stuff; that's the point of Debian. If
you think the DFSG doesn't apply *at all* to documentation (which is
what you seem to be saying), then what should apply? It seems to me
that you are not asking for some interpretation of the DFSG, but some
new thing entirely.
However, what (exactly) is your point? Why don't you spell out a
concrete, specific proposal, instead of arguing against the
all-but-universal understanding of the DFSG?
> Again, that is what you and other people on debian legal say, but it is by no
> means clearly written in the DFSG.
What is clearly written is that it must permit distribution as part of
an aggregate. I want to make sure that O'Reilly understands that
"meaningful" and "significant" and "important" are not any part of
that term... just aggregate, pure and simple.
> Well, yes, but the Sun OS is by no means an empty one liner, is it ?
The license as actually written prohibits distribution as part of Sun
OS-- which is enough to make it not DSFG free. In any case, there is
no question here of "empty" one liners.
If I wanted to republish an O'Reilly book, I would add the "why free
software needs free documentation" essay, and consider that an
aggregate. By no means is that an irrelevant empty addition.
I want them to explicitly acknowledge that such an addition--even if
only one page--is enough to trigger the "aggregate" clause.
> > The point is that the DFSG requires that free distribution as part of
> > an aggregation be permitted. It does not allow *any* restriction of
> > this, and thus, even a "no content one liner" aggregation is an
> > aggregation, and free distribution of this must be permitted,
> > according to the DFSG.
>
> No, see my reply to this at the beginging of the mail.
>
> This is just your interpretation, not what the DFSG says.
What it says is:
"The license of a Debian component may not restrict any party from
selling or givinrg away the software as a component of an aggregate
software distribution containing programs from several different
sources."
The single line
10 PRINT "HELLO WORLD"
is such a program; add "several" and we're done. One page of text,
and that's it, satisfying the curious restrictive clause in DFSG 1.
That's what it says. All this talk of "significant" and "meaningful"
and "important" are words that you have invented that are not found in
the DFSG--which requires even trivial, unimportant, and insignificant
cases.
> Because you interpret it as what you wish it to say, and since the opinion of
> the debian-legal folk is mostly the decisive opinion on this matter, it
> doesn't matter much if it really say so, or say otherwise, does it ?
Ah, but indeed, we are reading the license. Your opinion counts, but
it's only one opinion, and so far *everyone* disagrees with you.
But, of course, feel free to take it to the appropriate forum if you
want to amend the DFSG to restrict the meaning of "aggregation". This
is not that forum.
Thomas
Reply to: