Re: Why licenses *are* free (was: Re: Why I don't share Manojs fears.
Hi,
>>"Marcus" == Marcus Brinkmann <Marcus.Brinkmann@ruhr-uni-bochum.de> writes:
Marcus> On Fri, Aug 14, 1998 at 10:26:01AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Marcus> Well, this depends how much weight you give to the advantages
Marcus> and disadvantages and is essentially opinion. For me, the
Marcus> consequence is to put them in non-free (which does not mean
Marcus> that we can't obeye them). What would this express? This
Marcus> would express that the current situation is in some way
Marcus> sub-optimal, but this does not mean that we can't live with a
Marcus> slight dependency on non-free, as we do with pgp.
And I think that a freely distributable but not modifiable
document is not as undesirable as proprietary software; at least it
is freely distributable and follows other things in the DFSG (no
discrimination, etc). Verbatim is a good area; it also expresses our
discontent that the document is not good enough to go in main, but
distinguishes between (fairly common) unchangeable documents and
standards, and restricted software in non-free.
As to PGP, as son as the replacement (GPG) becomes stable and
functional, we are going to start using that. We depend on PGP since
so far, there was no choice.
Marcus> Many people think there should be a section for immutable
Marcus> documents. I consider this solution as sub-optimal. Either
Marcus> we are in favour for standards you can derive from (which
Marcus> name-change-and-whatever), or we are not. Creating another
Marcus> section is sort of laying the problem aside, trying to not
Marcus> adress it properly. It can also be seen as a compromise, and
Marcus> if the majority wants to see it this way, I'll not object,
Marcus> assuming that you can come up with a good definition what
Marcus> belongs in the new section.
It is not a compromise. It is a better delinieation of the
issue. I think things are not just black or white; and the verbatim
section recognizes that fact. I think that the FSSTND is actually
beneficial to Linux; and QT is not. Lumping them together is highly
suboptimal.
Marcus> My fear is that people will be satisfied with documents
Marcus> belonging in the "verbatim" section. For example, if software
Marcus> documentation also is allowed to belong there. I would like
Marcus> to see a proposed definition of the new section before I
Marcus> express further considerations.
Software documentation, we seem to have agreed, follows the
same criterion as the software itself. We are talking about other
things.
>> Why should exeptions be made for licenses
>> (which are in just as great a need to be improved and modified look
>> at NPL, AbiPL, and other GPL knockoffs [which in some way do dilute
>> the GPL, is only psychologically]) but not for standards?
Marcus> Reasons why Copyright documents are different from standards.
Marcus> 1) Practical reason
Marcus> Every piece of software comes with copyright notices. A big
Marcus> deal of Debian is under the GPL. If we choose we can't ship
Marcus> the GPL, we can't ship those software. For example, we
Marcus> couldn't ship dpkg :) and all FSF stuff.
I reject this. We know it is wrong, but this is a common
mistake, and so we condone it, and, after all, this is the FSF.
Sorry. The same reasoning applies to the FSSTND. I know of no
standard out there that would be allowed in main; that should be
enough reason too.
We should not flip-flop from a high moral ground and accept
anything pragmatism based on what document we look at.
Ship the GPL in verbatim, which is a part of debian. We can
still ship stuff. As you say later, either we take a stance on non
modifiable documents, or we don't. Putting them in verbatim seems the
best solution practically.
We can say that an immutable document, bundled with software,
does not prevent the inclusion of the software in main. (Software
programs can nver go in verbatim). So, packages can happily include
the GPL with no changes. But a stand alone package, (say, containing
/usr/doc/copyright/GPL), should go in verbatim.
Marcus> 2) Legal reason
Marcus> No copyright can restrict you on what license you choose to
Marcus> put your work
No copyright can restrict you on whatever standard your code
chooses to follow.
Marcus> under. This means, whatever license I write, I don't violate
Marcus> a copyright.
Not true in the united states. I have no idea what laws you
have in germany, this is not applicable here. Maybe the GPL should
not go in main in the US, but can in non-us? ;-)
Marcus> This applies mainly to the legal text, of course. So, I can
Marcus> take the legal text of the GPL (the "terms"), and apply them
Marcus> with whatever changes I want to my document. This means:
This distinction is not applicable in the US, license
documents are submit to copyright as well.
Marcus> * Deriving a new license from the GPL using the terms of the
Marcus> GPL is already granted by common law. *
Not in the UNITED states. Since our repository is in this
country, local laws do affect the Project.
So point 2 is null and void in the US.
Marcus> 3) Technical reason
Marcus> The GPL is not a technical document. The only benefit you can gain from
Marcus> taking parts of the GPL is taking from the legal text, which
Marcus> is already granted by point 2 above.
This is not applicable in the US. Snce point 2 is invalid, and
that is what you are basing point 3 on, that is invalid too.
Marcus> Shouldn't we ask RMS to make the license of the GPL more free?
Marcus> No. Because it alöready is as free as it ever needs to be
Marcus> (see point 2 above). Essentially, if RMS would change the
Marcus> copyright of the GPL text, he would probably choose something
Marcus> like this:
Since point 2 is invalid, this is invalid too.
Marcus> We should judge the freeness not by the verbatim words of the
Marcus> copyright, but by the words of the copyright in context with
Marcus> common law.
Precisely. But ``common'' laws are fairly uncommon, and change
from country to country. Stick to the letter of the document,
the spirit is different over here.
Marcus> Using the first, the GPL may appear non-free,
Marcus> considering the common law reveals that it is as free as we
Marcus> want.
Perhaps in your country. Certainly not in the United
states. Maybe it is time to create different distriutions for
different countries? This would be easier witrh the package pool
idea.
Marcus> There is a further argument, I'm not sure people will agree
Marcus> with. However, for the sake of completeness, I'll name it
Marcus> here:
You are correct, I do not agree. Length of the material is
immaterial (he he). Is it OK to include short non-propreitary code in
main since the software community can rewrite it easily?
Marcus> Copyright documents are very short, compared to standard
Marcus> documents. Rewriting a copyright from scratch, using quotes
Marcus> of legal texts (see point 2 above), is done fast. Rewriting a
Marcus> standard from scratch can take many months. However, I think
Marcus> this argument is not needed in this discussion, I find point
Marcus> 1-3 above already compelling.
Point 1 is not compelling (seems like sophistry, if I may
quote ;-), points 2 and 3 are invalid in the united states (possibly
canada?)
Marcus> BTW: If the dfsg is not free, is the Open Source definition
Marcus> in violation?
Bruce claims to be author. Authors can't violate cpyright.
manoj
--
The IQ of the group is the lowest IQ of a member of the group divided
by the number of people in the group.
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@acm.org> <http://www.datasync.com/%7Esrivasta/>
Key C7261095 fingerprint = CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
Reply to: