Re: Poll results: User views on the FDL issue
On Thu, Apr 21, 2005 at 12:36:33AM -0700, email@example.com wrote:
> Not quite. The public domain license is about giving works over into
> the commons. This is not true of GPL and GFDL. Once it's in the
> commons, it can be misappropriated into proprietary software, or
> twisted to misrepresent its original intent. GPL and GFDL respectively
> prevent this for software and documentation, respectively.
The GPL is about making sure everyone that receives the work receives
permission to do things to it (modify, distribute, and so on), and
making sure that everyone gets source (so they have the ability to
do so, as well).
Invariant sections are irrelevant to this.
> > Free Software is "what's in it for the public", and it is
> > specifically
> > not "what's in it for the copyright holder"--that's what proprietary
> > software is about.
> Not always. Often the copyright holder's concerns factor into choice of
> license. If the copyright holder did not give a damn about his/her
> concerns, wouldn't he/she always just use the BSD license w/o
> advertisement and w/o non-endorsement clauses or public domain?
This doesn't contradict what I said, though. Certainly, copyright
holders have freedom to determine how they release their work, if
at all, but that's orthogonal to Free Software.
> That's BS. No rights are per se being abolished here. The question is
> whether the chance for users to see an author's words as originally
> intended is more or less important than the chance to modify a
> document's invariant sections.
The fundamental Free Software right to modify works is being abolished,
in favor of the "right to see the original work"--which is not, in fact,
a principle of Free Software. (As far as I can tell, it's something you
just made up ...)
> > > bzzz Bad argument. Point's deducted. (I don't even like this
> > game.)
> > Snide, sarcastic replies that don't respond to my point aren't going
> > to convince anyone; it my point stands.
> Not that you would ever make such an utterance; oh, wait a second, _you
> would_, to wit: right in the parent e-mail, "Abolishing user rights is
> fine with you. Okay, that explains a lot."
I responded to the text I quoted, allowing the discussion--for what it's
worth--to continue. The above text, as I noted, does not.
> Is it, or is it not acceptable to trade a decrease in the rights to
> modify GFDL content in exchange for knowing that the content you have
> received reflects the author's original intent more authentically?