Re: stepping in between Debian and FSF
On Tue, 2 Sep 2003, Bruce Perens wrote:
> Both sides of this argument are wrong, and tempers are too high for you
> to resolve this by yourselves.
I don't see it this way. Both sides are imperfect, but on this issue I
feel it's pretty clear that the GFDL is a non-free license. Tempers on
the part of debian-legal regulars are no higher than ever, except for a
bit of frustration at having to re-debate points of the matter for the
tenth time.
> As an SPI director and the DPL historicaly responsible for decisions
> that both sides are arguing about, I feel that it's time for me to step
> in between the two parties.
Thank you. If I can do anything to help, including shutting up for
awhile, please let me know how you're progressing.
> Regarding non-free stuff in Debian and the GFDL, both sides are making
> the _same_ mistake:
Once again, I disagree. Both sides are making mistakes, but they are
different and unrelated mistakes.
> Debian, a Free Software organization, isn't being entirely true
> to the Free Software ethos while the non-free file tree is so
> close to the rest of the system.
I would love to see this change as well.
> FSF, a Free Software organization, isn't being entirely true
> to the the Free Software ethos while it is promoting a license
> that allows invariant sections to be applied to anything but
> the license text and attribution.
This, in my mind, is a more fundamental problem, and not "simply an
administrative issue". The FSF has every right to publish
non-free work, but Debian should not bend it's rules to include it.
> So, here is how I think both sides should start to work together:
> There is a fiction in the Debian Social Contract: "non-free isn't
> really part of Debian". It's time to make it so.
Very good.
> FSF, in turn, should assert that documentation is an
> essential component of Free Software, and that it must be under
> essentially the same terms as the software that it is associated
> with.
Also very good, but I fail to see how the two are related, or help the two
sides "come together". Both are things that should be done, one is
something that at least a number of project members has stated a desire
for, and the other is something that has so far been categorically
dismissed.
It would be a bizarre thing to me if RMS were to say "If Debian were to
stop distributing non-free, the FSF would agree that documentation needs
to be as free as programs and change the GFDL".
If he does say that, then I think there'd be a lot of support for
re-prioritizing the disposal of non-free. If he doesn't, we should
anyway, but it's a seperate thing from whether GFDL-licensed work can go
in Debian main.
> Now, can we please see some work on this, rather than bickering?
We've been working on this for years. The bickering is a result of the
work, and is valuable. That said, actual behavior changes (removing
non-free work from main, and getting non-free resolved) should move
forward.
--
Mark Rafn dagon@dagon.net <http://www.dagon.net/>
Reply to: