Re: documentation x executable code
On Thu, Jan 06, 2005 at 05:31:31AM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 06, 2005 at 10:56:57AM +0100, Peter Vandenabeele wrote:
> > The way it is presented here, makes perfect sense to me. The author must
> > have the right to keep certain "background/political/philosophical" parts of
> > his text (secondary) invariant, while allowing all needed updates, additions,
>
> The author of a program must have the right to keep certain "background/
> political/philosophical" parts of his program invariant.
>
> Well, yes, it's true that an author does have the right to do so; but
> if he does so, the work is not Free. For a work to be free, I must be
> able to modify it however I see fit, which includes removing irrelevant
> political spiels, or changing them to say something the original author
> strongly disagrees with. A free work may require that, in doing so, I
> do not misrepresent (accidentally or otherwise) the result as that of
> the original author, but it can not prevent the modification itself.
freedom does not include the right to plagiarise. nor does it include the
right to misrepresent another person.
by insisting on the right to delete/change attribution, and the right to
delete/change secondary sections, that is *exactly* what you are demanding -
the right to plagiarise and misrepresent.
it doesn't matter whether these things are specifically forbiden by a license
or not, because they are either unethical or illegal or both, anyway.
> Of course, non-free documentation can and does go in non-free. I'm
> not quite sure what your position is (above you seem to say invariant
> text is acceptable, here you seem to say that it isn't), but either way,
> this is already the case (or will be, once GR 2004-003 kicks back in).
actually, you're wrong. GR 2004-003 is about removing non-free stuff from
debian, it says nothing at all about the status of the GFDL.
claiming that the GFDL is non-free doesn't make it so. if you make a claim,
the onus is on you to prove it.
we already allow invariant sections in software (particularly software license
texts and copyright notices etc) so it's not as if this is some amazingly new
and unprecedented exception just for the GFDL - it's a practical necessity to
enable us to do our work of producing and distributing a free software
distribution.
> > An interesting consequence of this proposal is that a Copy-Exact of
> > the GPL License could not longer go into main (as it is essentially
> > one large invariant section. I quote from GPL:
> > "Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies
> > of this license document, but changing it is not allowed.")
>
> This is false. I suggest you read the rest of the thread to see why,
> or any of the other three or four hundred times people have tried to
no, it's not false. there is no explicit exception for the GPL or any other
invariant license text anywhere in the DFSG or debian developer guidelines or
policies. it has just been assumed that it isn't a problem, that it doesn't
conflict with the DFSG.
regardless of whether there is an explicit exception or not, there is no good
reason why we should treat license text invariant sections any differently to
front/back covers, philosophical rants, or other *secondary* sections within a
document. i.e. if we make an exception for invariant license texts for both
practical[1] and ethical reasons, we should make the same exception for other
secondary things.
peter's description of code as being the "subject matter" of software was
quite accurate, with the obvious corollary that the license is a "secondary"
section. the subject matter may not be invariant, but any secondary sections
may be.
(note i am talking only about sections that are *legitimately* secondary here.
the GFDL's restriction of what is allowed to be a secondary sections is quite
reasonable and legitimate. any document which misuses invariant sections is,
of course, non-free AND non-distributable.)
[1] practical reasons including: we wouldn't be able to distribute GPL
software at all, and nobody really needs to be able to change the GPL text -
same as nobody really needs to be able to plagiarise or put words in people's
mouths.
> convince us that Free Software is hopeless and we should just give
> up by claiming that license documents can't go in main.
i don't think anyone has ever seriously suggested that that should happen.
it's just pointing out the consequences of being fanatical and pedantic about
licensing trivialities. you'd think that these consequences would be obvious,
but the evidence suggests otherwise.
craig
--
craig sanders <cas@taz.net.au> (part time cyborg)
Reply to: