Re: Request for suggestions of DFSG-free documentation licences
"Jordi Gutierrez Hermoso" <jordigh@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 05/06/07, MJ Ray <mjr@phonecoop.coop> wrote:
> > > Small excerpts (e.g. an Emacs reference card from the Emacs info docs)
> > > are probably covered under Fair Use. [...]
> >
> > This is England calling.
>
> Would the FSF have to sue under US law or UK law an offender in the
> UK? I'm genuinely ignorant about this issue.
Others know better on the "have to" but if I can't show permission
from the copyright holder that's valid under English law, I believe
it's possible to be charged with a criminal offence (s.107 CDPA 1998
c.48). I still need to beware English law, never mind where FSF sues.
> > poison pill invariant sections
>
> Huh? Poison pill?
As long as you can connect it with one of the six subjects allowed
to make something invariant, you can make any topic off-limits for
your text.
For GNU statistical software for example, this seems very easy to
do. Imagine starting the appendix "I first started to use this
software after someone used it to illustrate the spurious climate
change relationship, which is wrong because..." You could probably do
something similar for almost any topic. (Given the waste of paper
caused by these adverts, it could be a climate-change double-whammy.)
> > and inability to fix some sections.
>
> What do you want to fix? The reasons for why free software needs free
> documentation or would you like to fix the suggestions on how to give
> funds to the FSF? You think you know better than the FSF what funds
> the FSF needs?
No, but it may be necessary to update donation details (it may be more
tax- and fee-efficient to pass donations through a body local to the
recipient), or change the wordings for things where soliciting
donations has to be done in a certain way to be legal.
For one more general example, many charity laws have limits on "Acting
with other bodies" and political activities, which may limit what
invariant sections they can publish. Why should charities be hindered
in publishing and reusing free documentation?
> [...] But it's Debian who
> insists on calling Wikipedia a software distributor (and I'm not
> referring to Wikimedia, I'm referring to Wikipedia's content). Since
> Debian wants to call every bitstream "software", then it feels like it
> can apply the DFSG to every bitstream.
We are not alone. One example:
"We can't depend for the long run on distinguishing one bitstream from
another in order to figure out which rules apply." -- Eben Moglen, in
Free Software and the Death of Copyright.
Not that it matters:
If you agree with me that documentation can be software, you
should oppose FSF promoting this non-free software licence.
If you agree with FSF that only programs are software, you should
oppose FSF promoting this non-software licence.
I also think it's tactically inept that FSF rewards legacy
publisher corporations (some of whom were among the creators and early
supporters of Open Source, and sought to marginalise RMS) with a
licence that preserves their business model.
Hope that explains,
--
MJR/slef
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct
Reply to: