Re: Request for suggestions of DFSG-free documentation licences
On Mon, 04 Jun 2007, Jordi Gutierrez Hermoso wrote:
> On 03/06/07, Don Armstrong <don@debian.org> wrote:
> >the maintainer (and the developers) recognized that users may need
> >or want such documentation, even though it does not meet the DFSG,
> >so the documentation was made available in non-free.
>
> That's a rather unsatisfactory fix. Although it does work for most
> practical purposes, the inability to ship Debian CDs with the
> necessary docs is quite a hindrance. There's also the PR image of
> Debian to consider, I think.
There's nothing stoping CDs with content that you feel is free enough
being made. And frankly, being concerned with a PR image isn't a valid
reason to compromise principles. The FSF is no more interested in its
public image than Debian is. [If the FSF or Debian were, there's no
doubt that RMS, myself, and the rest of us who are non-photogenic
would have been hidden away long ago.]
> >If you disagree with the determination of the Developers, you can
> >easily install the work from non-free, or cease supporting Debian
> >in its entirety. The choice is yours, really.
>
> That's unfair. I have been exclusively a Debian user since 2001.
> Installing GFDLed stuff from non-free is what I do, but it's
> inconvenient to track down those packages that aren't installed by
> default anymore.
I agree, which is why I've personally been involved in pressuring the
FSF to resolve the remaining issues in the GFDL for quite some time.
In my opinion, recognizing the issues and getting them resolved is the
right way forward; ignoring them because they come from the FSF is
not.
> The moralistic tone of the installation is also problematic for me,
> since I'm very proud to say that all of my work is done exclusively
> with free software (practically the BIOS is the only non-free
> software I have to use anymore). This an important distinction for
> the mathematical and scientific work that I do (proprietary software
> is unscientific, etc).
Deciding to use free software is quite often a moralistic stance;
where your convictions and morals lie dictate how you feel about this
issue.
> "Our way or the highway" isn't a nice thought either. Do you really
> think that the DDs that voted against putting the GFDL in non-free
> should fork off too? Debian is the best distro out there, and I'm
> very loyal to it, but I'malso very unhappy with its treatement of
> the GFDL, and I think this horrible mess should be fixed.
If a developer is unable to accept the decision of the majority as the
decision of Debian on a particular issue, that's really all that they
can do. In the end, of course, the separation of works into main and
non-free is necessarily a judgement based on the licenses which the
works have. Anyone who disagrees with the final determination made has
the ability to decide that the packages in the archive have
incorrectly segregated, and filter the Packages.gz files in the
archive appropriately.
Regardless, in this particular case, the only way to effect the change
you are calling for is to have a GR to overturn the existing GR.
Discussion of the issue on this mailing list will not cause the GR to
disappear.
Don Armstrong
--
Debian's not really about the users or the software at all. It's a
large flame-generating engine that the cabal uses to heat their coffee
-- Andrew Suffield (#debian-devel Fri, 14 Feb 2003 14:34 -0500)
http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu
Reply to: