Re: Poll results: User views on the FDL issue
On Tue, Apr 19, 2005 at 08:26:47PM -0400, Marty wrote:
> Olive wrote:
>
> >The preamble of the GPL is totally similar to an invariant section: it
> >express political opnion (and nothing or few about the licence itself)
> >and cannot be changed nor removed. The advertising close of the old BSD
> >license is free (by rule nr 10 of the social contract) and cannot be
> >modified nor removed.
>
> Exacty right, that really hits the nail on the head.
No, it doesn't. This argument, which (in short and phrased for emphasis)
is essentially "license texts can't be modified, so we should just give up
and allow anything to be unmodifiable", has been made many times, and has
been debunked solidly just as many times--anyone making this argument
really doesn't know the basic prior discussions.
(I'm not really faulting people for that--it's true that there isn't
yet a good, current source for someone to see the previous arguments
on the issues--several thousand posts on list archives doesn't cut it.)
> There is a strong undercurrent in the free software movement, including
> the anti-GPL crowd, that resists all restrictions and labels them as
> non-free. Unfortunately, these same people seem not to reject the "IP"
> law which the GPL helps to counterbalance. (By using "IP" law against
> itself, the GPL cancels out some of its more sinister effects.)
When people wish to restrict users in new ways, the burden of proving
that the new restriction is in the interests of users and Free Software
lies squarely on the people who wish to impose the restrictions. Free
Software *must* look at all new, unproven restrictions with extreme
caution. No solid (in fact, in my opinion, not even any interesting)
arguments have been presented for why it's in Free Software's interest
to permit complete prohibition of modification.
> Invariant sections are perfect example of a restriction that enhances
> the rights of the author (copyright holder) at the expense of the end
> user, but does so in a way that promotes sharing of information as
> opposed to "hoarding." I don't see much difference in principle between
> that and some of the effects of the GPL, so I don't see how you can call
> the FDL "non-free" without some degree of antipathy towards the GPL
> (and the FSF philosophy in general).
No, invariant sections do not promote sharing of anything. Invariant
sections can not be modified or reused in any way; this means that
the author is *not sharing* at all.
> Personally I suspect that a lot of coders with too much time on their
> hands should get back to releasing sarge, and let the OSI take care of
> the politics.
I find that anyone with a "shut up and stop wasting time making sure Debian
remains Free" attitude rarely actually has any defensible arguments. :)
(Those that do don't tend to fall back to condensation.) Debian is founded
on being 100% Free. If you don't like that, you're in the wrong place.
--
Glenn Maynard
Reply to: