Re: Why licenses *are* free (was: Re: Why I don't share Manojs fears.
On Sat, Aug 15, 1998 at 11:13:35AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >>"Marcus" == Marcus Brinkmann <Marcus.Brinkmann@ruhr-uni-bochum.de> writes:
>
> 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.
So far, we have no choice to use a free replacement for POSIX.
> 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.
I don't buy this. The Java kit is also beneficial to Linux, although it is
even more non-free than Qt. Pgp was beneficial. Just because something is
beneficial we don't have to try to push it into Debian. I'm perfectly happy
with a beneficial non-free component, either software or document, in
non-free.
Things are not black and white in the software world, too. nevertheless
Debian has a clear definition, and everything that fails is in non-free,
regrdless of the reason it fails. I like this.
> 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.
Sure. I just don't see the necessity to make an extra section for non-free
documents, and if we do, why it should be part of Debian.
> >> 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.
I don't understand what you mean here.
> 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.
Huh? We can stop to ship the FSSTND in main. This is no reason to stop
following the FSSTND. We also try to follow POSIX, although I've never seen
a copy of it.
Some years ago, there was no free software. Someone has to make a start.
So, just because people wrote immutable standard documents in the past, this
is not a reason to encourage a free+acceptable restrictions license in the
future.
> We should not flip-flop from a high moral ground and accept
> anything pragmatism based on what document we look at.
I see the "verbatim" section as a pragmatism.
> Ship the GPL in verbatim, which is a part of debian.
We have not agreed on this. It was exactly my proposal, to allow some very
special and well defined exceptions in main. This would make the verbatim
section unnecessary from my point of view.
> 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.
And I say we should allow some exceptions, but generally hold the line.
Furthermore I say that license documents are a valid exception.
> 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.
This assumes that the verbatim section is part of main, which is not
obvious from the current state of the discussion. Again, I think its simply
not necessary, as licenses are free enough for our purpose. See again below.
> 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.
Huh? What has this to do with this discussion?
My point was that I can use legal terms of existing licenses to write my own
license. I can't use existing standards to write my own standard (verbatim),
so your analogy does not hold.
> Marcus> under. This means, whatever license I write, I don't violate
> Marcus> a copyright.
>
> Not true in the united states.
Here you are wrong, and therefore I snipped the rest of your reply (it was
essentially a repetition of the above statement). Didn't you read the mail
from RMS:
RMS:
"Yes and no. There is a legal principle (in the US at least) that
copyright cannot restrict what license terms you use. So if you want
a license which has legal wording somewhat similar to the GNU GPL, but
somewhat different, you can write one."
So, a GPL with a "free" copyright would gain you nothing, as you'd have to
remove the preambel anyway. The legal text is not the problem, as you can
always copy from it. If you argue with fair use, or with the above legal
principle, I don't care.
[many things snipped]
> 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.
This will not bring us any further. We should always consider common sense,
too. For example, fair use is always allowed, it does not have to be stated
explicitely in the copyright.
> 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.
Ok.
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: