Re: GFDL freedoms
[I'm a little disappointed I've had only one response so far. I guess
that means the rest of you who are contributing to this thread are more
interested in flaming than trying to fix the problem.]
On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 02:41:18AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> > http://people.debian.org/~willy/dfdocg-0.4.txt
>
> This inherits its definition of Transparent from the FDL, but
> some DDs consider that awkward. Is there a better one?
I wasn't aware that people had expressed problems with the definition
of Transparent; it looked pretty good to me. I thought it better to
go with terms already in use than invent something of my own, but I'm
certainly open to suggestions.
> "Integrity of The Author's Document" looks like it might
> permit practically unmodifiable documents, as "certain ways"
> is very vague.
That sentence is preparatory for the rest of the section -- those certain
ways are then spelled out. Perhaps if it said "the following ways",
that would be clearer.
> This conflicts with "Derived Works" by denying
> some modifications (and do most understand that as "permit
> all reasonable modifications"?)
I think it's reasonable to deny some modifications. "Derived Works"
doesn't say "must allow any modifications". Just like the GPL denies
some freedoms in order to preserve others.
> and it also contradicts
> with "No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor" because no
> topic of a secondary section can used as the main purpose.
I don't think that's an interesting case though. Why would you take a
document that has nothing to do with a particular subject and turn it
into a document that has that subject as its main purpose? That seems
ludicrous to me. Put another way: why is that a freedom you want to have?
> "Example Licenses" lists several which are incompatible. Is the
> intention to edit the guidelines or request licence updates?
Do you mean "which are incompatible with each other", or "incompatible
with the document as written"? If the former, neither. If the latter,
both. I envision adapting the DFDocG to meet the needs of the licences
without giving up essential freedoms.
> Regarding your "Issues", note that only the DFSG's
> explanations/examples use the word "programs". If you did
> introduce a simple word change, I think it would be pretty
> likely to succeed but there would be accusations about
> "editorial changes" again.
That's not true. For example:
8. License Must Not Be Specific to Debian
The rights attached to the program must not depend on the
program's being part of a Debian system.
> On another issue, these fdocg are still incompatible with
> the anti-DRM parts of FDL and not entirely clear about the
> post-download availability problem.
It seems to me that the anti-DRM parts of the FDL that we have problems
with are just bugs in the licence and stand a good chance of being
removed from a future revision. The post-download availability problem
also just seems like a bug to me rather than a hardline philosophical
issue. So I don't want to accept these bits of the FDL.
> Finally, the hard part - when to use fdocg and when to use
> DFSG - doesn't seem to be covered at all yet.
Indeed. Ironically, the editorial changes to the SC actually make it
more cumbersome to add the DFDocG. I don't think it was intentional,
just annoying.
> Tactically, I would reject adopting this. Even if it is possible,
> I do not think it is good for one party in a dispute to draft
> a compromise alone. Work seems to be underway with CC (thanks
> Evan and others!) but that dispute is minor compared to FDL.
There will always be people who I can't convince that this is a good
idea, and I'm OK with that. I don't have to convince everyone, just a
supermajority of project members ;-) I don't want to draft a compromise
alone, I want the FSF to give a bit. But I was sick of all the whining.
We need to start figuring out what our position is on docs. Right now,
it's simply "everything is software" which really irritates me (and several
other people). This is a trial balloon.
--
"Next the statesmen will invent cheap lies, putting the blame upon
the nation that is attacked, and every man will be glad of those
conscience-soothing falsities, and will diligently study them, and refuse
to examine any refutations of them; and thus he will by and by convince
himself that the war is just, and will thank God for the better sleep
he enjoys after this process of grotesque self-deception." -- Mark Twain
Reply to: