Re: `free' in GNU and DSFG?
On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 12:10 AM, Andrei POPESCU
<andreimpopescu@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Vi, 08 iun 12, 10:58:48, Hiroki Horiuchi wrote:
>>
>> After reading your words, now I think The Free Software Definition is
>> really permissive, but this very *permissiveness* made GNU's definition
>> insufficient for Debian Project.
>
> Not in my opinion. Take the example of the GFDL: a document with
> invariant sections does not have freedom 3. AFAIR the FSF's stance is
> that documentation is not software.
>
> Debian's stance is that a truly free software also has free
> documentation[1] and the GPL can and should be used for that as well (or
> at least not use the restrictive options of the GFDL)[2][3]
Here's the relevent section directly from the GFDL[5]:
--------
A "Secondary Section" is a named appendix or a front-matter section of
the Document that deals exclusively with the relationship of the
publishers or authors of the Document to the Document's overall
subject (or to related matters) and contains nothing that could fall
directly within that overall subject. (Thus, if the Document is in
part a textbook of mathematics, a Secondary Section may not explain
any mathematics.) The relationship could be a matter of historical
connection with the subject or with related matters, or of legal,
commercial, philosophical, ethical or political position regarding
them.
The "Invariant Sections" are certain Secondary Sections whose titles
are designated, as being those of Invariant Sections, in the notice
that says that the Document is released under this License. If a
section does not fit the above definition of Secondary then it is not
allowed to be designated as Invariant. The Document may contain zero
Invariant Sections. If the Document does not identify any Invariant
Sections then there are none.
--------
[5] http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html
Basically, only "Secondary" sections can be invariant and Secondary
sections can only outline the original author's connection to the
subject matter, it can't contain any subject matter text at all (such
inclusion is prohibited). I cannot think of a case where someone
modifying the document would, when acting in a good faith manner, want
to alter this text. Any alteration to this kind of text is,
essentially, "putting words in the mouth of the author." I do
understand the Debian position, but I feel it's a solution looking for
a problem.
That said, I think the biggest unintended side-effect of Debian's
position (and it's an ironic one) is that in this drive for purity,
users are now *encouraged* to enable contrib and non-free in order to
get access to documentation for their systems. The original intent
was to bring cover Debian in an umbrella of purity with regards to
Freedom, and the result is to encourage users to reject the Freedom
offered through use of the "main" repository only in order to obtain
something as basic as system documentation.
Based on what is allowed in an invariant section, I can't see
modification of those sections being ethical. I don't know, however,
if they can be removed entirely (it would be reasonable to remove them
if allowed, in my opinion). The license does indicate that a GFDL
covered document might not contain any invariant sections -- would a
GFDL document that has no invariant sections be considered Free under
the current Debian guidelines? Or does the use of the GFDL at all
automatically make the entire document non-free?
> [1] a complex software for which the only documentation is the source
> code is not very useful and there is no reason why the same liberties
> should not apply to documentation
Those liberties do apply to the documention, as the parts of a GFDL
document that actually document the software can never be declared
invariant. That is forbidden by the license. See the example from
the license itself: a textbook on mathematics cannot contain any
mathematics in a secondary section, and only secondary sections may be
invariant.
> [2] for an entity that preaches non-proliferation of licenses FSF has
> created quite a few...
They have 4 licenses, all of which seem to serve a unique and
necessary role: GPL, LGPL, AGPL, and GFDL.
> [3] before anyone here wants to argue that the GPL is meant for software
> only they should read it[4]
Reading it or not, the author of the license has indicated that's his desire.
--
Chris
Reply to: