Re: GFDL
Summary: no exemption for FSF; doc-advocacy package suggestion; hope
this is resolved.
On 2004-05-07 03:31:44 +0100 Mahesh T. Pai <paivakil@vsnl.net> wrote:
MJ Ray said on Thu, May 06, 2004 at 11:37:26PM +0100,:
been less or more enlightening if you had the freedom to edit it?
I would have got a very different idea about freedom if this friend
had changed either the FSF's `political speech', or the Debian PM or
DFSG and whatever else is in doc-debian and allied packages. That this
friend had the freedom to modify the latter, but did not, is a
different issue altogether.
Now, this is not an answer to the question asked. I did not ask
whether an edited version would have been more or less enlightening,
but whether an editable version would have been. You seem to have
taken the message from FSF that it is OK to deny people the freedom to
edit some software, which I think you got from their example. In some
ways, doc-debian is a better education tool about freedom because you
have more freedom to edit it, but in other ways it is probably weaker
because I think FSF's argument for that freedom is well-written. It is
a shame I find its application somewhat patchy and arbitrary.
Maybe their aim is noble, but I believe their method is wrong. This
My point is that it is not a question of `wrong' and `right'; just a
different way of solving issues.
The FSF have argued that giving these freedoms is a moral or ethical
question. I think it is fair to decide whether I think their method is
right, as well as whether it does the job they want to do.
feel that the FSF does not currently represent my view on software
Which is what the whole issue is about. FSF says `documentation is not
software'. Debian says `whatever we carry in our CDs is software'.
In a nutshell, ignoring the wording problems and so on, this is the
largest difference. Debian seems to follow the meaning of the word
"software" as used by Tukey, while FSF are using the modern mass
media's "software" (= "programs").
[...] if
Debian takes out what is `free documentation' for the FSF we loose a
potent tool for spreading the concept.
[Wow, a real live lawyer on debian-legal. Should I bow or something?
Seriously, praise to you for staying here.]
If debian deliberately acts in a hypocritical manner, then we probably
sink the social contract. I would much rather not lose any FSF works,
but if FSF will not release them under a free software licence, debian
should not make an exception for them.
Hopefully, we could find free software from other sources and make an
independent doc-advocacy (probably a bad name) package if people feel
strongly enough about this.
I would never have understood the real meaning of `free software' if
the FSF's messages were not carried in a *Debian* CD, and I read them
side-by-side with the documents in /usr/share/doc/*debian*.
I suggest that you do not yet understand the real meaning of "free
software" if you think FSF should release software which is not free
software...
Does debian really want to deny future newbies a good intro to what
free software is by taking out all this political speech from the
/usr/share/doc?
No, but I don't want debian to be hypocritical either. There is
probably another way to achieve the aim, avoiding that.
And all this `political speech' is very different and has to be
treated differently from other `do not modify' documents like RFCs.
I'm not convinced. I am quite happy if someone tries to take my words
and use them for another end. (Hell, they have in the past!) They will
may find improvements which I can use to improve my persuasive skills.
Of course, they may be arguing against me, but I feel I have nothing
to fear from open debate and people deciding for themselves.
This is worrying, but not insurmountable.
Yes. And somebody tells me that there was a meeting of this committee
last month. And there was some progress on this issue.
I believe that is the case, but I don't buy vapourware. Here's hoping!
--
MJR/slef
My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know.
http://mjr.towers.org.uk/
http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ for creative copyleft computing
Reply to:
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: GFDL
- From: Raul Miller <moth@debian.org>
- Re: GFDL
- From: "Mahesh T. Pai" <paivakil@vsnl.net>
- Re: GFDL
- From: Nathanael Nerode <neroden@twcny.rr.com>
- References:
- Re: GFDL
- From: "Mahesh T. Pai" <paivakil@vsnl.net>