RE: Licenses for non-software works, and the definition of softw
On Tue, 26 Jan 1999, Darren Benham wrote:
>
> On 26-Jan-99 Jules Bean wrote:
> > Hi,
> Hello.
>
> > *Please*, if you have strong views on this subject, at least skim the
> > above threads, and those which follow on related issues, before entering
> > the debate. It was very drawn out last time. It is an important issue,
> > and I don't think we should vote on a new DFSG which doesn't address it.
>
> It *is* possible to have these issues addressed in another document. Maybe,
> one that describes the conditions for all files that get to go into main. For
> software, it can point to the DFSG, for other files, it can handle as is
> fitting (and we don't know what that is, yet)...
True. That is a sensible option.
However, the DFSG then needs to clearly indicate what its domain is, of
cours.
>
> > 1) Technical documentation should be 'free' in the GPL sense.
> > This was widely held by all participants in the debate.
> Ok. Wait.. in the GPL sense or in the DFSG-software-traditional sense? ie.
> with rename clauses and patch clauses and the such.
"Should" in an idealistic sense. I'd like documentation to be free in the
GPL sense, and for the same reasons. I'd be happy with merely free in the
DFSG sense.
> > 3) Licenses are generally not free
> > This is more or less a fact, actually. The GPL does not give the
> > permission to modify, notwithstanding the fact that some other licenses
> > are very clearly derived works.
> As it *has* to be...
It doesn't have to be. The GPL could say, for example, 'this license
applies to the software which is put under it, as well as this document
itself, when it is distributed with the software'.
It doesn't, of course, say that. And it doesn't with 'good' reasons,
which RMS has explained, and which I disagree with. But I think we're
pragmatically going to have to live with.
>
> > 4) Some good, 'free' software has non-free documentation
> > This poses a dilemma for our principles.
> Can't. If it's part of the upstream source, the documentation needs to
> be free.
The dilemma is that we currently do distribute such documentation. The
perlfaq is one example, notwithstanding the opinion of the packager, and
the file 'perlfaq-is-free' in /usr/doc/perl.
> > Our conclusions, IMO, should be included either in the new DFSG, if we
> > accept it, or incorporated into the current, if not.
> As for the draft, point 4 is covered. The current draft says:
>
> These guidelines are intended to be applied to software programs, that
> is, machine-readable programs that instruct a computer how to perform
> specific tasks, its source code, and any other items included with the
> original source distribution.
>
> The line "....and any other items..." is intended to cover documentation
> that's part of the distributed software but not require third-party
> written works to be covered under the software license.
*nod*.
Which excludes some software, currently in main, whose documentation
happens to be non-free. Ouch.
Jules
/----------------+-------------------------------+---------------------\
| Jelibean aka | jules@jellybean.co.uk | 6 Evelyn Rd |
| Jules aka | jules@debian.org | Richmond, Surrey |
| Julian Bean | jmlb2@hermes.cam.ac.uk | TW9 2TF *UK* |
+----------------+-------------------------------+---------------------+
| War doesn't demonstrate who's right... just who's left. |
| When privacy is outlawed... only the outlaws have privacy. |
\----------------------------------------------------------------------/
Reply to: