Re: Inconsistencies in our approach
John Goerzen <jgoerzen@complete.org> writes:
> Problem #2: Double Standards
>
> We have, and continue to, allow information to be distributed with software
> under even more strict terms than the FDL. Examples of these things include
> licenses.
>
> All of the arguments being made about freeness of documentation -- that
> somebody may want to develop a document based on the original -- would also
> apply to licenses (perhaps I wish to develop a license based on the GPL).
> Yet we are ignoring the problem with the licenses.
I wish to address a very narrow part of this point: because copyright
protects only creative expression of ideas, and because legal
terminology is intended to be strictly denotative and carefully
defined, contracts and similar legal texts (including licenses)
receive very weak copyright protection; often none.
The BSD license, for example, or the usual warranty disclaimer, are
boilerplate: there's no other way to express exactly the same idea, so
the expression receives no copyright protection. As a result, I
suggest you abandon this point of your argument.
> Problem #3: Separability of Problems
>
> Concern has rightly been expressed about the ability to modify software
> documentation, especially since Free Software is out there to be modified.
>
> Concern has also been expressed about the ability to modify RFCs.
>
> While I share that concern, and agree in principle that they should be
> modifyable providing the modified version does not claim to be an RFC, we
> need to bear in mind that RFCs serve a quite different purpose than software
> documentation.
>
> RFCs are here to provide specifications, and their usefulness is directly
> derived from the fact that everyone can point to a single unified source for
> a spec.
Aw, heck. While I'm here, I'll dice the rest too. While you're
correct about a major use of RFCs, it's hardly the only one. My
principal use of the RFCs, for example, has been extracting text for
use in new documents. The new RFCs don't allow me to do that, and are
clearly non-free.
> I, therefore, see the attempt to banish RFCs -- which are not
> software
You really wouldn't want us to insist on shipping the non-software
versions. Apt-get really bogs down when asked to process 20 lb A4.
-Brian
--
Brian T. Sniffen bts@alum.mit.edu
http://www.evenmere.org/~bts/
Reply to: