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

Re: A possible GFDL compromise



On Mon, Aug 25, 2003 at 05:10:48PM +0900, Fedor Zuev wrote:
> On Sun, 24 Aug 2003, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> >Le dim 24/08/2003 ? 21:44, Fedor Zuev a ?crit :
[me:]
> >> >If people disagree with what you say, you should not prohibit them
> >> >from doing so. You're still a well-known person who can reasonably
> >> >assume that what you write or say will not go unnoticed. Even if
> >> >it's removed from one distribution of a manual.
> >> 	I cannot see any connection between disagreement with anyone
> >> opinion, and the right to censor somebody else's opinion, so
> >> angrily demanded by you.
> >>
> >> 	But, since these demands and these sophisms repeated only on
> >> this list only in the last several days several times already, I
> >> should conclude, that FSF was completely right, when included
> >> counter-censorship measures in its license.
> 
> >Can't you understand nobody would ask for removing these sections
> >if they were as free as the FSF would like to call them ?
> 
> 	I do not know the man named Nobody.  I can believe that
> personally _you_ will never remove sections from documentation you
> distribute just because you disagree with author. Even the majority
> of debian developers will not do that.
> 
> 	But Wouter Verhelst, to whom letter I reply, clearly stated
> otherwise. And, this letter was not first, even on this list.

I wouldn't be so sure I stated that so clearly. I said people should
have the right to do so, if they would want to; but I never suggested I
would.

Check your facts next time, please.

> >OH MY GOD, WE DON'T INCLUDE ACROBAT IN DEBIAN MAIN, THIS IS
> >*CENSORSHIP*, WE HAVE NO RIGHT TO EXCLUDE IT FROM DISTRIBUTION!
> 
> 	No. If you do not include Acrobat at all, it will not a
> censorship. Nobody expect from you to distribute everything.

Exactly. We're not expected to distribute computer programs or their
documentation if we feel the license doesn't fit in our DFSG.

Since we feel this is the case for the GFDL (well, at least most of us
do), we're not expected to distribute any GFDL'ed document.

You were saying?

> 	But if you take Acrobat, remove, say, the Adobe EULA, and
> distribute the rest, it will be censorship or, at least, very
> similar.

We're not doing that. I suggested people should have the right to remove
non-essential parts of a manual. They could have legitimate reasons for
that, but currently, the GFDL doesn't allow them to do so.

The alternative is to not distribute the parts of the software that are
licensed under the GFDL. Which is something entirely different from
'removing the Adobe EULA from its distribution'.

> Because you conceal from users the information from
> creator, that they reasonable expect to receive from you. Against
> the will both the user and creator. It may, also, be copyright
> infringement, of course.

That is not of our concern. What is copyright infringement, and what is
not, is defined by the license. If the license clearly states that it is
OK to remove non-essential information, or to modify the software in
another way, there is no copyright infringement. If the license states
that such is not allowed, the software cannot go in main, and there will
be no copyright infringement either.

-- 
Wouter Verhelst
Debian GNU/Linux -- http://www.debian.org
Nederlandstalige Linux-documentatie -- http://nl.linux.org
"Stop breathing down my neck." "My breathing is merely a simulation."
"So is my neck, stop it anyway!"
  -- Voyager's EMH versus the Prometheus' EMH, stardate 51462.

Attachment: pgpawkJdSdpnU.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: