Re: GFDL freedoms
Thibaut VARENE <varenet@esiee.fr> wrote:
> This has a name: ideology. Rarely (if not never) can it be actually
> implemented in real life.
What is free software if not an ideology? We make the main/non-free
distinction because we (generalising madly) believe that our users
should have certain freedoms. Arguing whether that line should exist or
not is ideology. Arguing about precisely where it should be drawn
doesn't affect that.
> You're also forgetting that some people your providing software to
> aren't allowed to *use* the freedom you give them. But that's another
> story, which leads us to the eternal discussion of "should we align
> our policy to the least common denominator?", with a forseeable effect
> of letting us with nothing to provide to anyone :P
Where local laws make it impossible to provide certain freedoms, that's
an issue the people subject to those laws should address. We can support
those efforts, but there's nothing else we can do about it.
> Consensus (as you seem to be a proponent of that idea) is not about
> satisfying everyone.
When we *can* satisfy everyone, we should do.
> This problem only occurs under certain interpretations of the text of
> the license. As I see it, if I, as a user, download a copy of GFDL'd
> material and store it on an encrypted/DRM media for my personal use,
> I'd be having a good laugh if somebody told me I'm not allowed to,
> since I'm not re-distributing anything.
No. Making a copy on an encrypted filesystem is clearly against the
license - however, in several jurisdictions it's probably fair use, and
the FSF would be unlikely to sue anyone over it. *Distributing* a copy
on an encrypted filesystem is both against the letter and the spirit of
the license. I think that's a freeness issue.
> As a side note, if one wants to be anal about the legal aspects, I
> think that every modern law system has the notion of "being mandated
> (as in "having a right") to sue/complain" whatsoever (i don't know how
> this is called in english, but YKWIM). Given that, it seems to me that
> your PSP example is none of our concerns so far. If Sony wants GFDL
> doc to be distributable on PSP, *they* can arrange with FSF. Let's not
> add imaginary additional issues to those we already have.
This isn't about giving us rights. It's about giving our users rights.
We refuse to distribute all sorts of things even though we could do,
because not all of our users would have the right to perform reasonable
acts with that material. The DFSG ensure that our users know which
rights they have upon receiving a package from main. Those rights should
not require further negotiation with the copyright holder.
> It's also possible for reasonable people to show a little common sense
> and not try to make everybody's life a nightmare because they found
> that under some crack-smoking reading of the License text, it is
> restraining their almighty freedom. Consensus and good will, this is
> what it is about.
Ok, let's just simplify this to the basic issue:
I believe that for software to be free, it must be possible to
distribute it in DRM-encumbered formats, providing an unencumbered
version is also available. Do you disagree? If so, why?
> PS: i'm not subscribed to d-project
Cc:ed.
--
Matthew Garrett | mjg59-chiark.mail.debian.project@srcf.ucam.org
Reply to: