Re: (DRAFT) FAQ on documentation licensing
Evan Prodromou wrote (nice essay, by the way): We haven't yet seen the package that was so absolutely indispensable that we had to give up our principles to include it in Debian. Well, to nitpick, the GPL license text might qualify as that absolutely indispensible case. License texts are a *very* special case, though, for many reasons which have been discussed before (license proliferation is actually bad; even if it's modifiable we have to ship it unmodified in order to ship the things licensed under it; if the law didn't make it necessary we wouldn't ship license texts at all; it's easy to tell a license text apart from the rest of Debian because it's always in /usr/share/doc/package/copyright; have I missed any?) Anyway, I'm pretty sure nobody is going to come up with anything other than another license text which is as essential as the text of the GPL (or which has as little negative impact if allowed in) so your points still stand. Oh. I contribute this message to the public domain, or if that is not legally possible, I grant everyone a perpetual irrevocable license to treat it as if it is in the public domain. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: (DRAFT) FAQ on documentation licensing
Jacobo Tarrio wrote: This should be useful for people who ask about the GFDL, documentation licensing guidelines, etc. Comments, additions, removals, rewordings are allowed and requested. There are no invariant parts ;-) When/if it becomes more or less stable, it would be useful for the DFSG FAQ, I think... snip contents On a quick perusal, I like it all. :-) We probably actually need a FAQ about the meaning of software. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: (DRAFT) FAQ on documentation licensing
O Venres, 15 de Abril de 2005 ás 00:29:52 +0200, Francesco Poli escribía: Copyright ones are not the only issues that matter when we check whether a work is DFSG-free. Oh, you're right. -- Jacobo Tarrío | http://jacobo.tarrio.org/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: (DRAFT) FAQ on documentation licensing
On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 02:15:06PM +0200, Jacobo Tarrio wrote: O Xoves, 14 de Abril de 2005 ás 07:39:30 -0400, Evan Prodromou escribía: Probably another point worth making is that being in Debian or being DFSG-free is not equivalent to being good or being righteous. [...] Yes, that's worthy of an entry in the DFSG FAQ, only not in the documentation licensing FAQ part I'm drafting :-) How about this, more to the point? If the author or standards organization is unconvinced by this argument, and does not want to allow modifications, it's not a tragedy. Standards documents are useful for programmers but are by no means indispensable for Debian. Users who absolutely need a standards document can get it elsewhere, or they can conveniently get it through apt from the non-free companion distribution. I think if the only answer we have for the idea of unmodifiable documents is oh, but _all_ docs should be modifiable, we miss an important point. Docs that aren't modifiable don't _have_ to be in Debian is another important answer. It's _nice_ having verbatim distribution RFCs available in an apt archive, but it's not worth changing our policies. ~Evan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: (DRAFT) FAQ on documentation licensing
O Venres, 15 de Abril de 2005 ás 17:06:00 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] escribía: How about this, more to the point? If the author or standards organization is unconvinced by this argument, and does not want to Ah, now I understand what you meant :-) I have added something to that effect. I'm sending now a message with the current version of the FAQ for any further comments; I won't send any other version until Monday at the earliest. Latest version: http://jacobo.tarrio.org/Documentation_licensing_FAQ -- Jacobo Tarrío | http://jacobo.tarrio.org/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: (DRAFT) FAQ on documentation licensing
O Xoves, 14 de Abril de 2005 ás 01:22:56 +0200, Francesco Poli escribía: A: The DFSG is a set of minimum criteria that are taken into account when deciding if a particular copyright license is free or not. I would prefer if a particular /work/ is free or not. Actually, it would be a mix of both: if a particular work, with its copyright license, is free or not. [...] the existence of different DFSG and DFDG would mean that there are some freedoms that are necessary for programs but are irrelevant for documents, and vice versa [...] I would add Nobody has yet provided a convincing rationale to explain *why* programs and documents should need a different minimum set of freedoms. The Debian project claims that the same freedoms are important for both programs and documents. Agreed; I intended to add something like this all along, but I finally forgot it. Thanks for adding it :-) A: First, standards documents should be modifiable: that's how old standards are improved and new standards are made. Modifying a copy of a standards document, such as a RFC, does not modify the RFC itself. [...] they fail to see the difference between creating a derivative work and modifying the work itself [...] I'll add ; it just creates a new work, derivative of the original RFC to the sentence, since the derivative work bit is important :-) Perhaps it's better avoiding recommending trademarks or otherwise we should be prepared to see more and more Mozilla-like mess in the future... :-( Mmmm, you are right. I'll delete the comment about trademark laws (will leave the reference to libel), but they will eventually have to be mentioned, since I believe that they're the ones to be used for protecting the reputation of the authors/of the original works, etc., etc., not a clause in the copyright license. But while the implications of using trademark law for this are not fully explored by us and put into writing, perhaps they're best left out of this FAQ... (I was going to remove slander, since slander is speech and libel is writing, but perhaps someone would modify a voice recording just to prove me wrong, so... ;-)). [Comment] Good example. My favorite one is the following: if the license of a MUA forbade to add HTML mail support (because the authors are philosophically against HTML mail), this license would be considered non-free, even when it would be protecting the authors' own opinions. This is even a better example than mine. I'll change mine to this (the old one is kept saved in the page's [1] history). == [1] http://jacobo.tarrio.org/Documentation_licensing_FAQ -- Jacobo Tarrío | http://jacobo.tarrio.org/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: (DRAFT) FAQ on documentation licensing
On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 10:15:25AM +0200, Jacobo Tarrio wrote: Perhaps it's better avoiding recommending trademarks or otherwise we should be prepared to see more and more Mozilla-like mess in the future... :-( Mmmm, you are right. I'll delete the comment about trademark laws (will leave the reference to libel), but they will eventually have to be mentioned, since I believe that they're the ones to be used for protecting the reputation of the authors/of the original works, etc., etc., not a clause in the copyright license. It could also be fraud, or (strangely enough) in some jurisdictions, copyright. Although not the part of copyright law that is related to licensing; the right to not have things misattributed to you cannot be waived, transferred, or otherwise licensed. But it is sometimes written into the copyright statute rather than anywhere else. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: (DRAFT) FAQ on documentation licensing
O Xoves, 14 de Abril de 2005 ás 09:37:12 +0100, Andrew Suffield escribía: It could also be fraud, or (strangely enough) in some jurisdictions, copyright. Although not the part of copyright law that is related to licensing; the right to not have things misattributed to you cannot be waived, transferred, or otherwise licensed. But it is sometimes written into the copyright statute rather than anywhere else. And that's why don't use the name «apache» or don't misattribute me clauses in copyright licenses are stupid: because then I might create a completely new work called «apache» or attributed to that author without contravening the terms of these licenses. What stops me from doing these things are other laws. If I find the right wording, I'll add it to my FAQ proposal. -- Jacobo Tarrío | http://jacobo.tarrio.org/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: (DRAFT) FAQ on documentation licensing
On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 11:03:06AM +0200, Jacobo Tarrio wrote: And that's why don't use the name «apache» or don't misattribute me clauses in copyright licenses are stupid: because then I might create a completely new work called «apache» or attributed to that author without contravening the terms of these licenses. What stops me from doing these things are other laws. Of course, for the same reason, don't modify this standards document is stupid: if my intent is to confuse people, I could create an entirely original document and claim that it's RFC1234. Renaming requirements, stupid as they are (what about my helicopter sim, Apache Combat, and my military combat game, Apache Warriors?), are a big step up from complete invariance, though. (At least the new Apache license dropped that dumb clause--but not until after damage was done; eg. Subversion.) -- Glenn Maynard -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: (DRAFT) FAQ on documentation licensing
On Wed, 2005-04-13 at 16:14 +0200, Jacobo Tarrio wrote: Q: The ability to keep certain parts of a document is essential for some kinds of document. For example, RFC or other standards documents should not be modifiable. Or a piece may contain the author's opinion on something, and nobody should be allowed to represent the author's position by modifying that piece. A: First, standards documents should be modifiable: that's how old standards are improved and new standards are made. Modifying a copy of a standards document, such as a RFC, does not modify the RFC itself. Probably another point worth making is that being in Debian or being DFSG-free is not equivalent to being good or being righteous. Being Free doesn't automatically make things good. You can make Free Software computer viruses that are pretty evil, and you can make Open Content kiddie porn and racist propaganda.* The converse is true, too. Plenty of authors have unmodifiable programs and non-program works for whatever reason. There's nothing _wrong_ with that. There's nothing _wrong_ or _bad_ about not wanting your works distributed or distributed in modified form. I don't want love letters distributed to the world in Debian, nor do I want my will modifiable by anyone. Everyone has their reasons and their comfort level with how they send their brainchildren into the world. We'd love it if every author of digitally distributable works would seriously consider releasing their works under a Free license. But if they don't, well, that's their decision. BUT... if works don't meet our standards for Freedom, they can't be in Debian. That's OUR decision. Debian is not a public library where all the world gets to put its works; it's OUR operating system, and we make it how we like it. And: we like it Free. Folks who want us to respect their reasons for not making their works DFSG-free should respect our deeply-held beliefs in freedom, enshrined in our Social Contract. We have a special distribution, non-free, for works that can be distributed but for some reason or another can't be in Debian. This lets Debian users get at non-free works as easily as they get at packages in Debian. This is our compromise and show of good faith with the world. Standards documents are an example of works that a) may need to stay unmodified (depending on the authors' wishes) and b) are useful for Debian users. They're a great candidate for non-free packages. We haven't yet seen the package that was so absolutely indispensable that we had to give up our principles to include it in Debian. The chances that some bit of documentation or a desktop background is going to be worth compromising what we believe in are _extremely_ slim. ~Evan * Most of this stuff wouldn't get into Debian, either, though. -- Evan Prodromou [EMAIL PROTECTED] signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: (DRAFT) FAQ on documentation licensing
O Xoves, 14 de Abril de 2005 ás 07:39:30 -0400, Evan Prodromou escribía: Probably another point worth making is that being in Debian or being DFSG-free is not equivalent to being good or being righteous. [...] Yes, that's worthy of an entry in the DFSG FAQ, only not in the documentation licensing FAQ part I'm drafting :-) -- Jacobo Tarrío | http://jacobo.tarrio.org/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: (DRAFT) FAQ on documentation licensing
Andrew Suffield wrote: If you want to propose an alternate set of guidelines for some subset of the works in Debian, here's what you need to do: Append at the end: - Discuss it on -project(?). Once you've worked out any problems with your proposal, and feel you have enough support... - Propose a General Resolution to amend the Social Contract and convince a supermajority of your fellow developers to agree. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: (DRAFT) FAQ on documentation licensing
Andrew Suffield wrote: It could also be fraud, or (strangely enough) in some jurisdictions, copyright. That's really not that weird; the US is one of those jurisdictiosn, for example (though only for some works, oddly enough). Sec. 106a. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: (DRAFT) FAQ on documentation licensing
O Xoves, 14 de Abril de 2005 ás 08:55:07 -0400, Anthony DeRobertis escribía: Append at the end: - Discuss it on -project(?). Once you've worked out any problems with - Propose a General Resolution to amend the Social Contract and convince Oh, yes. I thought it looked too easy ;-) -- Jacobo Tarrío | http://jacobo.tarrio.org/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: (DRAFT) FAQ on documentation licensing
O Mércores, 13 de Abril de 2005 ás 16:56:04 +0100, Andrew Suffield escribía: Of course, a copy of the GNU Emacs manual printed on dead trees is unequivocally documentation, ^ You mean 'not software'. It's always documentation; in softcopy form it happens to be software as well (and since it's written in info, it probably qualifies as a program). Yes, that's what I meant. I left it [1] as definitely not software :-) == [1] http://jacobo.tarrio.org/Documentation_licensing_FAQ [2] [2] It doesn't have DRAFT in the URL but it does in the text. -- Jacobo Tarrío | http://jacobo.tarrio.org/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: (DRAFT) FAQ on documentation licensing
On Wed, Apr 13, 2005 at 04:14:23PM +0200, Jacobo Tarrio wrote: Q: Why are the DFSG applied to documentation? There should be some Debian Free Documentation Guidelines (DFDG) to be applied to documents instead of the DFSG. A: See the previous question. Even if it doesn't convince you or you can live with the ambiguity described there, the existence of different DFSG and DFDG would mean that there are some freedoms that are necessary for programs but are irrelevant for documents, and vice versa, as will be exemplified in the following questions. I've written this four times in the past week, so it belongs in a FAQ. Something along these lines should be included: If you want to propose an alternate set of guidelines for some subset of the works in Debian, here's what you need to do: - Write them. Most people never manage this part. - For each license restriction permitted by your new guidelines that isn't permitted by the DFSG, answer the following three questions: 1) How do we distinguish between packages where it should and should not be allowed? 2) Why should it be allowed in for these packages? 3) Why should it not be allowed in for every other package? Note that the answers to (2) and (3) should not involve special pleading or otherwise be contradictory. Because it's documentation is not a valid answer, and the answer to (3) should not apply to the packages in question. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: (DRAFT) FAQ on documentation licensing
On Wed, Apr 13, 2005 at 04:14:23PM +0200, Jacobo Tarrio wrote: be modifiable. Or a piece may contain the author's opinion on something, and nobody should be allowed to represent the author's position by modifying that piece. Should represent be changed to misrepresent? -- Doug Jensen -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: (DRAFT) FAQ on documentation licensing
O Mércores, 13 de Abril de 2005 ás 17:56:11 +0100, Andrew Suffield escribía: I've written this four times in the past week, so it belongs in a FAQ. Something along these lines should be included: Done. Now you can start just pasting URLs [1] :-) == [1] http://jacobo.tarrio.org/Documentation_licensing_FAQ -- Jacobo Tarrío | http://jacobo.tarrio.org/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: (DRAFT) FAQ on documentation licensing
On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 16:14:23 +0200 Jacobo Tarrio wrote: This should be useful for people who ask about the GFDL, documentation licensing guidelines, etc. Thanks for doing this job! :) Comments, additions, removals, rewordings are allowed and requested. There are no invariant parts ;-) Of course! ;-) ROTFL! When/if it becomes more or less stable, it would be useful for the DFSG FAQ, I think... I agree. [...] A: The DFSG is a set of minimum criteria that are taken into account when deciding if a particular copyright license is free or not. I would prefer if a particular /work/ is free or not. [...] A: See the previous question. Even if it doesn't convince you or you can live with the ambiguity described there, the existence of different DFSG and DFDG would mean that there are some freedoms that are necessary for programs but are irrelevant for documents, and vice versa, as will be exemplified in the following questions. I would add Nobody has yet provided a convincing rationale to explain *why* programs and documents should need a different minimum set of freedoms. The Debian project claims that the same freedoms are important for both programs and documents. Q: The ability to keep certain parts of a document is essential for some kinds of document. For example, RFC or other standards documents should not be modifiable. Or a piece may contain the author's opinion on something, and nobody should be allowed to represent the author's position by modifying that piece. s/represent/misrepresent/ A: First, standards documents should be modifiable: that's how old standards are improved and new standards are made. Modifying a copy of a standards document, such as a RFC, does not modify the RFC itself. [Comment] I agree particularly on this and would like to point out that it's exactly where many people fail to understand our position: they fail to see the difference between creating a derivative work and modifying the work itself (and sometimes even modifying the author's opinions! Hey! How could I do that? I have no hypnotic powers! ;-) If what's really intended is to stop someone from passing a modified document as the original, other means can be used, such as trademark laws or slander/libel laws already existing in most jurisdictions. Perhaps it's better avoiding recommending trademarks or otherwise we should be prepared to see more and more Mozilla-like mess in the future... :-( [...] It is the same situation in a program. For example, if the license of a kill all spiders game forbade to make versions with cats instead of spiders (because the authors love cats while they loathe spiders), this license would be considered non-free, even when it would be protecting the authors' own opinions. [Comment] Good example. My favorite one is the following: if the license of a MUA forbade to add HTML mail support (because the authors are philosophically against HTML mail), this license would be considered non-free, even when it would be protecting the authors' own opinions. -- :-( This Universe is buggy! Where's the Creator's BTS? ;-) .. Francesco Poli GnuPG Key ID = DD6DFCF4 Key fingerprint = C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4 pgpY65Juu4W6P.pgp Description: PGP signature
