Re: Poll results: User views on the FDL issue
--- Glenn Maynard <glenn@zewt.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 21, 2005 at 12:36:33AM -0700,
> foo_bar_baz_boo-deb@yahoo.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.
That's because free _software_ (in the 'literally computer programs'
sense) has not been used for dissemination of political and
philosophical ideas such as those introduced in GFDL invariant
sections.
>
> > > 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.
Not always orthogonal to Free Software. Sometimes a copyright holder's
desire to push the software in certain directions via license choice
(copyleft to prevent hoarding, for instance) is very much in sync with
concerns of the movement collectively. But admittedly, this is a pretty
trivial issue.
> > 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 ...)
The right is not really being abolished. Invariant sections are a small
percentage of the work. You can still change the rest of the work, or
editorialize on the invariant portions. I don't agree with the extreme
connotation of abolish in this context. But admittedly, this too is
relatively minor.
> > > > 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.
Agreed. You were dealt a bad hand by that e-mail; I'm just saying that
it goes both ways. An eye for and eye and soon the whole world will be
blind. Let's all avoid the red herrings and trolling that are
omnipresent, and try to think about the rights horse trade being
considered.
> > 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?
>
> No.
I don't necessarily agree with this answer, but I can understand your
reluctance or refusal to accept GFDL content. The arguments put forth
on its behalf do have a radically new bent that is fairly sure to be
unfamiliar and weird-sounding to $DEBIAN_DEVOTEE.
I know that perhaps it does not sound this way from the tone of my
writing (I have a way of getting frustrated more easily than I should),
but I am trying my best to keep a cool head and provide some decent
backing for the proposal.
Reply to: