Re: A possible approach in "solving" the FDL problem
Jeremy Hankins wrote:
You recommend that we assign values to all the pros & cons of a
particular license, and call free any license in which the positives
outweigh the negatives. Am I understanding you correctly?
The problem with this* is that what you're really describing is the
utility of the license, which is something completely different from
the freedom of it. Take the simple case of a license that pays me to
accept it -- it may be non-free in many ways, but a lot of people
would probably think the positives (free money) outweigh the negatives
(no right to modify or redistribute, for example).
Unfortunately we do not live in the ideal world.
Freedom has a value because it is convenient and useful to be free.
Nothing else. There is no need to have a freedom which can't be used,
and sometimes we can agree to give away a bit of our freedom, which we
can't (or do not want) utilize in exchange for other values.
A good example is GPL, which takes away the freedom to use GPL sources
in closed sources. We don't want to utilize such a freedom and we
exchange this freedom for helping GPL to spread. Note, there still can
be special rare cases, where such a freedom is really needed.
Another example can be FDL. It takes away the freedom to modify parts
that deals exclusively with the relationship of the publishers or
authors political statements. Usually, there is no need to modify
someones political statement, and we exchange this freedom for helping
FDL documentation to spread. Note, there still can be special rare
cases, where such a freedom is really needed.
Quote from Fedor Zuev:
After all, copyright laws is the only reason for existence
of GPL, DFSG, Debian Social Contract and many others tricky and
complicated devices for achieving some degree of freedom.
Best regards, Sergey Spiridonov