Re: The invariant sections are not forbidden by DFSG
Anton Zinoviev <anton@lml.bas.bg> wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 31, 2006 at 09:50:46AM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
>> On Tue, Jan 31, 2006 at 03:41:03PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
>> > On Wed, Jan 25, 2006 at 09:54:40AM +0100, Frank Kuster wrote:
>> > > Anton Zinoviev <anton@lml.bas.bg> wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > It is not inconvenient to distribute auctex_11.html together with the
>> > > > invariant sections.
>> > >
>> > > Of course it is - imagine that my documentation contains parts from 10
>> > > documents, all under GFDL, all using lots of invariant sections - that
>> > > would be more than inconvenient.
>> >
>> > the DFSG does not require convenience. it requires freedom. lack of
>> > convenience DOES NOT equate to non-free.
>>
>> True; however, Frank said "it would be more than inconvenient", which
>> does not say he thinks that the main problem is lack of convenience
>> here.
>
> Since obviously we all use the words "convenient/inconvenient" in many
> different ways, let me make more clear how the GNU project and I
> understand which inconvenience is allowable and which is not.
>
> In general, we say that some software license is free if it doesn't
> obstruct the users to exercise their basic four freedoms and in
> particular the freedoms to adapt the work to your needs and release
> improved versions to the community.
We are not talking about software licenses here, but documentation.
Since Debian has decided to treat both types equally, but the FSF has
not, you shouldn't mix things up when claiming to present the FSF's
view.
So do you claim that the GNU project thinks that the basic four freedoms
should apply to documentation? If so, please provide some evidence,
since I have read a couple of quotes from RMS saying the opposite.
> Speaking more specificly, if the AUCTeX's manual was under GFDL, then
> Frank would not be allowed to distribute auctex_11.html alone -- GFDL
> would require him to ship this file as a component of a valid document
> containing the invariant sections also. However it is not impossible
> task to ship auctex_11.html together with the invariant sections and
> as a matter of fact it is a relatively easy task.
Technically for sure, but in practice it can become a burden that
effectively prohibits this use (see my example about the
"internationalization in text processing" that wants to use one html
page from AUCTeX's manual and one page each of a dozen of other GFDL'ed
documents.
> Would that be
> inconvenient to Frank? -- Yes. Does this inconvenience obstruct the
> software freedoms somehow? -- Certainly not, the users get the file
> Frank wants to give them.
No, many won't download the file if they know they have to download 10
MB in order to get 900kbyte of content. Moreover, I doubt that it would
be allowed to structure the text like this:
1. Intro, including explanation of the structure
2. Content
2.1 to 2.12 the individual documents' internationalization docs
3. Legalese
3.1 to 3.12 the individual documents' invariant sections
Instead, I fear I would be oblidged to go like this:
1. Intro
2. AUCTeX manual
2.1 Invariant front texts
2.2 Interesting page
2.3 Invariant back texts
3. Some other manual
3.1 Invariant front texts
and so forth up to
12.3 Invariant back texts.
This would make the manual basically unusable.
> Sometimes when applied to some license, the four basic software
> freedoms can look too abstract. Fortunately we have our Debian free
> software guidelines -- they are more concrete and and easier to apply
> to the particular rules of the license. DFSG are guidelines showing
> us which licenses obstruct the users freedoms and which do not.
> Unfortunately, if we forget the purpose and the source of DFSG it is
> easy to misinterpret them. For example it is easy to say that DFSG3
> protects the freedom "to modify the software as you see fit". However
> DFSG3 doesn't say "as you see fit". The purpose of DFSG3 is to ensure
> that we are allowed to distribute improve versions of the software and
> to adapt the software to particular needs.
For example the need to create a compilated work from a dozen of
manuals.
>> Hence, if you keep adding invariant sections, eventually any
>> reasonable definition of "the document's overall subject" would be
>> whatever all those invariant sections talk about.
>
> Here are some questions to help to determine what the overall subject
> of the document is:
>
> 1. Why the people read the document?
Will they read it at all if there's below 25% "real content"?
> 2. How the people will remember the document?
"This text in which I hard a hard time finding the relevant sections".
> 3. What informal name the people will give to the document? (In
> most cases this will be the same as the real name of the
> document)
"don't remember".
> 4. If the document is printed as a book/pamphlet, how it is going to
> be classified in the public libraries?
"Curiosa"
Regards, Frank
--
Frank Küster
Single Molecule Spectroscopy, Protein Folding @ Inst. f. Biochemie, Univ. Zürich
Debian Developer (teTeX)
Reply to: