Re: The draft Position statement on the GFDL
Raul Miller wrote:
> On Tue, May 11, 2004 at 05:23:21PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
>> Nothing prevents them from doing so. That, however, does not affect
>> the *fact* that, for whatever reasons, they do not *actually* do
>> so. Hence a claim that they do is *factually incorrect*.
>
> I'm very dubious about this concept.
Well, deal with it.
> You've proposed a license for a work [which I've never seen, so have
> not examined]
The official manual for GCC.
(a) The FSF's Front-Cover Text is:
A GNU Manual
(b) The FSF's Back-Cover Text is:
You have freedom to copy and modify this GNU Manual, like GNU
software. Copies published by the Free Software Foundation raise
funds for GNU development.
> makes some claim about making money, and that you have a
> hypothetical derivative work where that claim would be false.
Well, first of all, I don't believe I have freedom to copy and modify the
manual "like GNU software".
Now, suppose I make a derivative work; a manual documenting some other CC.
Or indeed, one documenting GCC, but one the FSF doesn't accept. Is it "A
GNU Manual"? Certainly not. Are there copies published by the Free
Software Foundation? No.
> Even if I grant that a particular work might have this flaw, it seems
> to me that this is a flaw in that work.
OK. Whether it's a flaw with the work or with the license doesn't matter.
If you call it a flaw with the 'work', accept that this is a flaw with
every work which contains Cover Texts which could be inaccurate for
reasonable derived works.
This includes all FSF-distributed GFDL-licensed manuals with Cover Texts,
and every other Cover Text I've actually seen used. Which makes it a very
real problem.
> Also, a patches only license
> can put us in exactly the same state of factual incorrectness.
>
> That said, for the cases I can imagine involving such work -- if I
> cared about it at all -- it would be easy enough to add a statement of
> the form "while the free software foundation made money from earlier
> editions to this work, I don't think they will be making any money from
> this edition for some time." Your hypothetical "factual incorrectness"
> is purely contextual, and it's probably possible to fix the context that
> the statement is no longer incorrect.
Do you think that adding your own text on the cover would *really* be
sufficient? Then all copies might say:
(on the front cover)
Using XCC
A GNU Manual
except it isn't really
(and on the back cover)
You have freedom to copy and modify this GNU Manual, like GNU
software. Copies published by the Free Software Foundation raise
funds for GNU development. Except the Free Software Foundation doesn't
publish copies, because this isn't an official GNU Manual, although
it's based on one.
This is insane. I consider it an unacceptable "solution".
> Then again, if your primary concern is not "presenting the facts clearly",
> but "expressing righteous indignation", I can see why you wouldn't like
> this approach.
>
Stop insulting people. I think we have presented the facts quite clearly.
--
There are none so blind as those who will not see.
Reply to: