Re: What do you win by moving things to non-free?
foo_bar_baz_boo-deb wrote:
> [...] It seems to me that non-free software is
> stuff that is encumbered in such a way that it's hard to really use it
> or debug it or redistribute it or develop it. This does not apply to
> the GFDL unless it's read in a pretty extreme (non middle-of-the-road)
> fashion. [...]
The purpose of the FDL seems to be to prevent debugging or
development of selected parts of a manual that the author
considers Perfect. I don't see why you argue it's not a typical
non-free candidate on that basis.
> There is however a balance point. It could be argued that the GFDL is
> approximately as free as the DFSG rules, but in a different way. GFDL
> is a license that grants some more privilege to an author to preserve
> his/her original intent and/or meaning without interference.
Careful. You are writing "the DFSG rules" = "the Debian Free
Software Guideline rules". What are guideline rules?
I agree that the FDL grants more privilege to an author to
preserve parts of their work than is generally understood to
follow the DFSG. That should be enough to bar it from main.
> This could have an advantage for users (DFSG's #1 priority) because
> they can be sure that they have received a document that the original
> creator would approve of. They know the author's original intent and
> philosophical reason for doing something some way. What about that side
> of the GFDL coin? Nobody seems to have mentioned this yet, to my
> estimation.
I'm fairly sure that's been covered during the FDL debates and
there's a FAQ somewhere that includes "is it about attribution?"
Really, what does our user care about the author's original
intent over and above our intent in supplying the manual?
If they wanted the original, why are they downloading a derived
work? One could argue that an attribution should include a way
to locate the previous version and I doubt many would disagree.
I'm pretty sure everyone would agree that it would be OK to
require that changed sections aren't attributed to the original
author.
To argue that part of the work can be unmodifiable to avoid
misattribution would be a bit extreme. That same end result
could be obtained with less loss of freedom.
> Another thing, it's not fair for you to think / say people should not
> be here just because they have a different definition of freedom than
> you do.
No, but the FSF-like definition of free software and the Debian
Free Software Guidelines are both pretty well known. Arguments
for Yet Another New Definition Of Freedom are best started
elsewhere.
> Nor is it fair to say that anyone's argument is more or less
> meritorious just because of its being communicated anonymously. I just
> feel that adding my name to this would cause certain trolls, flamers,
> etc. to jump onto my back and drag me down.
Anonymity has little reputation. Some people do let your past
make a difference to how seriously they consider your message and
it takes quite a lot of work to change it (but it can be done).
That may mean that people ask about your past.
I'm sorry that you're trashing foo_bar_baz_boo-deb by topping
and tailing your messages with off-topic rants - will you
abandon that name too, soon?
--
MJR/slef
http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Reply to: