Re: GFDL freedoms

[MJ Ray <mjr@dsl.pipex.com>]

Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> [I'm a little disappointed I've had only one response so far.  I guess
> that means the rest of you who are contributing to this thread are more
> interested in flaming than trying to fix the problem.]

I think that's trolling. Please don't do it. I think it's more likely
that people are unwilling to look at a half-complete solution that
leaves the harder part (when to use which) undone.

> On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 02:41:18AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> > > http://people.debian.org/~willy/dfdocg-0.4.txt
> > This inherits its definition of Transparent from the FDL, but
> > some DDs consider that awkward. Is there a better one?
> I wasn't aware that people had expressed problems with the definition
> of Transparent; it looked pretty good to me. [...]

I think the emphasis on text editors and human editing are the concerns,
but it's not an exact thing.

> go with terms already in use than invent something of my own, but I'm
> ways are then spelled out.  Perhaps if it said "the following ways",
> that would be clearer. [...]

I think it would.

> > This conflicts with "Derived Works" by denying
> > some modifications (and do most understand that as "permit
> > all reasonable modifications"?)
> I think it's reasonable to deny some modifications.  "Derived Works"
> doesn't say "must allow any modifications".  Just like the GPL denies
> some freedoms in order to preserve others.

That's not at debate. What modifications is it reasonable to deny?

> > and it also contradicts
> > with "No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor" because no
> > topic of a secondary section can used as the main purpose.
> I don't think that's an interesting case though.  Why would you take a
> document that has nothing to do with a particular subject and turn it
> into a document that has that subject as its main purpose?  That seems
> ludicrous to me.  Put another way: why is that a freedom you want to have?

The simplest example is an FDL encyclopedia: you couldn't take material
from some FDL'd works.

> > Regarding your "Issues", note that only the DFSG's
> > explanations/examples use the word "programs". [...]
> That's not true.  For example:
> 
> 8. License Must Not Be Specific to Debian
> 
> The rights attached to the program must not depend on the
> program's being part of a Debian system.

Where in "License Must Not Be Specific to Debian" do you see the word
"program"?

Apologies if the trim changed the meaning, but I think the cut part is
beyond argument.

> We need to start figuring out what our position is on docs.  Right now,
> it's simply "everything is software" which really irritates me (and several
> other people). 

The argument is not and never has been "everything is software". That's
almost as badly misleading as arguing against "documentation = software"
which isn't the argument either.

> This is a trial balloon.

I think the balloon drifted off without interesting many. Let it go.

-- 
MJR/slef