Re: [rms@gnu.org: Free Software Needs Free Documentation]
On Mon, Aug 10, 1998 at 12:13:01AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Marcus> On Sun, Aug 09, 1998 at 05:28:45PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Marcus> I can understand that people have that fear, but I think it
> Marcus> is not substantiated (at least within the free osftware
> Marcus> community), and therefore should not be taken into account in
> Marcus> this discussion.
>
> Not so. Our fears of trojan horses have never been
> instantiated. Our fears about people destroyin our CVS data have
> never been instantiated. Does that mean we do not plan and take
> precautions? This is a groundless argument.
This is a groundless argument? Not quite so. The softwrae examples show that
there are other ways to take precautions. The whole free software movement
shows this. The precautions don't have to be set in the license.
Trust is one thing, honesty another. Silly changes to standards will be
followed by nobody, especially not by Debian.
Taking precautions is one thing, making improvements impossible in the first
place another.
> Marcus> Some people are frightened about their software, too, and
> Marcus> forbid disassembling etc. We don't allow this software in
> Marcus> main.
>
> We have a reason. It has to do with sharing. It has to do with
> being able to see what is going on, and not being locked in to a
> vendor. Part of that does not apply to documents, and the sharing
> aspect is actually enhanced if we can trust we all follow the same
> standard, not w locally modified version of what used to be a common
> but is not more standard.
This is your opinion. My opinion is that the same reasons apply so that we
are not being locked in by silly standards.
IMHO, locally modified versions of a standard are better than nobody
following an insufficient standard at all and everyone making up his own
"standard". Eventually someone will step up and merge all differences into a
single standard again (as it happened with apache, for example. Sorry for
the software analogy).
> >> No, I'm not. What I am saying is that I can see authors not
> >> wanting their baby to be modified and distorted, and releasing
> >> standards under no-modification-or-translation terms, and I do not
> >> see this as a threat to the community, indeed, it is not even
> >> detrimental.
>
> Marcus> It is okay for authors to think and act this way, but I don't
> Marcus> think we can distribute technical documents with this
> Marcus> restrict copyright in main.
>
> Reasons, please.
Read them up, I'll not repeat myself over and over again:
http://master.debian.org/~brinkmd/free_doc/index.html
and the various postings in this thread.
> Marcus> Example: Some people would not like to have bash scripts
> Marcus> ported to csh, because they consider csh scripts as
> Marcus> insecure. We don't allow authors to put restrictions like
> Marcus> that.
>
> This is not the same case at all (please try not to mix
> software examples into this, they just confuse the issue).
This was an analogy, sorry for stretching your imagination. See below for
the "translation" of the analogy into the topic.
Another complication is indeed were documentation is mixed up with source
code, I'mnot sure if I want to touch this topic for now.
> Marcus> Just think of an author who thinks his work should not be
> Marcus> translated into <put any language here>, because he is a
> Marcus> rassist, or dislikes the language personally for whatever
> Marcus> reasons (maybe to annoy his neighbour). I don't think that is
> Marcus> acceptable.
>
> This is borderline. However, the resistance to translation
> could be that some things do not translate well (peotry is one). For
> some works of art, translation is artistic butchery. I can see why
> people may not want that to happen.
Manoj, again you are confusing two issues:
Poetry: You can't stop me translating it. Translations are considered a work
by themselfes, where the copyright is holding the translator. Let's drop this
issue. I can take whatever art work and translate it, without considering
copyright issues, and without considering the opinion of the original author.
>From the berne convention http://www.law.cornell.edu/treaties/berne/2.html:
(3) Translations, adaptations, arrangements of music and other alterations
of a literary or artistic work shall be protected as original works without
prejudice to the copyright in the original work.
Technical documents: If you object against translations of those, please
read Enriques mail. Some people want to work with computers although they
can't speak english, you know?
> >> As long as one may create a standard that borroes from the
> >> inital standard, but is distinct, and has a distinct name, I think it
> >> is OK to allow the document into main.
>
> Marcus> This comes closer to our needs. But now you are fleeing in
> Marcus> generalizations. What do you mean with "borrow"? We can't
> Marcus> make policy with such vague terms, so we should keep on the
> Marcus> safe side with terms we have experiences with.
>
> Like your example licence borrowed heavily from the GPL. The
> GPL is not modifiable; but your license is likely to be allowed as
> long as it does not pretend to be the GPL.
Ok.
> How about an original Graphic Novel? How about James Joyces
> "Ullyses"? Do you approve af people punctuating Joyce's books?
Shall I repeat myself? I already stated that I think art works and
expression of personal opinions should be treated special.
If you have a deb package of Ulysses, please but it in non-free, so I can
downlaod it :)
You are mixing graphic novels and standards with no reason.
> >> I am not really talking about ideal licencing here (marcus and
> >> RMS and co are doing that). I am talking about wht I think is
> >> detrimental to the community, and shold not be in main, and what I
> >> think does not harm the community, and, IMHO, should be allowed into
> >> Debian.
>
> Marcus> I'm also not discussing perfect world here. Reality requires
> Marcus> clear terms. We have to decide if we want to allow
> Marcus> non-dfsg-free data entities at all, and when, which under
> Marcus> which additional restrictions.
>
> The discussion is a good start. But we have a long way to go
> before we can come up with something.
Fleeing in generalizations will not help us. Concrete points will.
Please don't misunderstand me: I think we have seen many good and concrete
points in the discussion so far. I just want that it stays so.
Thank you,
Marcus
--
"Rhubarb is no Egyptian god." Debian GNU/Linux finger brinkmd@
Marcus Brinkmann http://www.debian.org master.debian.org
Marcus.Brinkmann@ruhr-uni-bochum.de for public PGP Key
http://homepage.ruhr-uni-bochum.de/Marcus.Brinkmann/ PGP Key ID 36E7CD09
Reply to: