Re: GFDL freedoms
On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 16:25:51 +0100
Matthew Garrett <mgarrett@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
> Thibaut VARENE <varenet@esiee.fr> wrote:
> > Matthew Garret wrote:
> "You may not use technical measures to obstruct or control the reading
> or further copying of the copies you make or distribute."
>
> That's not just "some of the copies", it's all of them. Making a
> DRM-encumbered copy and distributing it to someone obstructs the reading
> or further copying of *that copy*, even if you provide another copy
> which is unencumbered. This is something that's ridiculously easy to fix
> in the license, and it's something that we should ask to be fixed.
>
> We could take the attitude that it's unlikely that anyone will sue us
> over it. However, free software only works if people follow licenses
> (or, alternatively, if there are lots of lawsuits). "This license isn't
> really free, but you probably won't get sued over it" isn't a good
> argument - people would be likely to start using it against us
> instead...
Correct. Anyway I think, and hope, that this DRM GFDL issue is a bug in
the license and will be fixed soon.
> > eg: In my previous example, what then could have been wrong in me
> > telling the guy that knocks at the door: "go get it on the web"? What
> > then could be wrong in distributing Wikipedia on PSP given it's
> > available on the web as well?
>
> Ok. Another question. Should Debian follow the licenses in software we
> use, even if we probably won't be sued if we don't?
Of course.
> > Side question: do you agree that the world isn't Manichean and that
> > the answer to our issue can't be "black or white"?
>
> Oh, absolutely. There are all kinds of shades of grey - the problem with
> them is that we only have a black and white (free or non-free) way of
> dealing with them. At the end of the day, all the shades of grey have to
> be divided into those two catagories.
This is where i disagree. I think we have to be "comprehensive" when
dealing with acceptation of licenses: When balancing the interests of our
users and our commitment to freedoms, we should be able to tell "what is
free *enough* for our purposes".
The respect of licenses is clearly a matter of "yes" or "no". The
acceptation of licensed material *can* (and I'd say *must*) pass a
non-binary test.
My understanding of the DFSG ("Guidelines") as the name suggests, was
clearly that it wasn't meant to be a yes/no test. Unfortunately, it seems
that it is what most people want it to be.
Perhaps then it should no longer be entitled "Guidelines", but "Rules",
instead.
In my previous example, a license only stating "you can do whatever you
want with the licensed material but redistribute it printed on toilet
paper" would fail the DFS "Rules", whilst i do believe it's clearly free
enough for our purposes (and our users), and should pass "Guidelines".
My 2 cents.
--
Thibaut VARENE
Debian, Ubuntu and Kernel hacker
http://www.parisc-linux.org/~varenet/
It is never wise to assume that genius programmers cannot do something
because the incompetent or mediocre cannot. -- Eric Raymond
Reply to: