Re: Not inherently free, but inherently non-free?
Thank you all for your answers, I think I can get the point now.
>>>>> "GM" == Glenn Maynard <g_deb@zewt.org> writes:
GM> On Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 11:03:32PM +0200, Milan Zamazal wrote:
>> The license of a Debian component may not restrict any party from
>> selling or giving away the software as a component of an
>> aggregate software distribution containing programs from several
>> different sources. The license may not require a royalty or other
>> fee for such sale.
[...]
GM> Not permitting distribution on a DRM medium restricts "selling
GM> or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate
GM> software distribution containing programs from several different
GM> sources".
GM> It seems straightforward to me; I can't take the program,
GM> package it with something else (forming an aggregate software
GM> distribution), put it on a DRM medium and sell it, due to a
GM> license restriction.
When DFSG was written, the point 1 was specifically handling cases like
"you can't distribute this software together with software holding
certain properties". In your reasoning, the "put it on a DRM medium"
part is not *clearly* covered by DFSG#1. I think Lewis has explained
the issue in a more clear way, see below.
HM> Section 3 (Copying in quantity): Forces to distribute
HM> transparent (source) along with the opaque (binary) form: forced
HM> distribution of goes against the spirit of the DFSG, altough not
HM> its letter.
>> So this doesn't violate DFSG.
GM> Violating the spirit of the DFSG *is* violating the DFSG.
GM> Please don't insist that a set of guidelines be read as a set of
GM> strict rules. A lot of people try to do that, and it simply
GM> doesn't work.
I agree, but in this particular case it's very questionable whether
forcing you to distribute the sources is against the spirit. Consider
DFSG#4, which explicitly permits an obstruction leading to medium space
waste (unmodifiable source distribution package). In such cases, it's
better to stick to the letter (or clarify the letter).
>>>>> "HM" == Humberto Massa <humberto.massa@almg.gov.br> writes:
HM> I will try again, before going home.
Thanks.
HM> USofA copyright law acts only on redistribution of software, not
HM> its use; any attempt to act on its use by a license is normally
HM> considered non-DFSG-free-ness by debian-legal.
OK, this is a good point.
HM> I made a copy. It's not my copyright, is other person. If I do
HM> "chmod -r", it's a technical measure that obstructs others from
HM> further copying my copy.
I think it's not your copyright, but it's still your copy. So
`chmod -r' is IMHO just stopping distribution of the copy.
HM> Forced distribution of the source is also considered by
HM> debian-legal non-freeness.
If it is so, it's inconsistent with DFSG#4, see above. Is there a
pointer to a particular reasoning behind this?
LJ> Section 3 (Copying in quantity): Forces to distribute
LJ> transparent (source) along with the opaque (binary) form: forced
LJ> distribution of goes against the spirit of the DFSG, altough not
LJ> its letter. Apply similarities with the Desert Island test.
I don't understand how the Desert Island test applies here to GFDL and
not to GPL. Could you explain it (or give a particular pointer),
please?
HM> As I said before, at least one case is absolutely, crystal clear
HM> as per the DFSG: the DRM restriction is absolutely forbidden by
HM> the DFSG#1, that states: "
HM> The license of a Debian component may not restrict any party
HM> from selling or giving away the software as a component of an
HM> aggregate software distribution containing programs from several
HM> different sources.
Again, it doesn't say "on any medium". But:
>>>>> "LJ" == Lewis Jardine <s9902074@sms.ed.ac.uk> writes:
LJ> Surely it's implicit in 'may not restrict any party' that the
LJ> licensed work must be distributable in any form the distributor
LJ> chooses? As it stands, GFDL works cannot be distributed at all
LJ> on DRM media and therefore if the distributor puts (for example)
LJ> paragraphs from a GFDL manual in spoken form on a CSS,
LJ> Region-coded DVD, he is restricted from distributing this DVD,
LJ> which is an aggregate software distribution containing programs
LJ> from several different sources (If you take documentation to be
LJ> software, which AFAIK, Debian does).
Here is the point. If the document was distributed *only* on a CSS
medium, it might violate copyleft principles. But it should be allowed,
for example, to distribute the document on such a medium, if it is
accompanied with a freely readable medium. GFDL is unclear here and
that's the problem.
Thanks.
Regards,
Milan Zamazal
--
The seeker after truth should be humbler than the dust. The world crushes the
dust under its feet, but the seeker after truth should so humble himself that
even the dust could crush him. -- M. K. Gandhi
Reply to: