Re: migrating away from the FDL
My question is: what's the right way to do this? If all contributors agree, can I just drop the FDL from my 'legalese' paragraphs, replacing it with a reference to the GPL, or do I have to mention the fact that previous versions were licensed under the FDL? Do I have to wait for a new update of those documents, or can I just go ahead and change the license without changing the licensed text? Normally you can drop the ref. to the FDL completely. But note that if someone got a copy under the GNU FDL, he is free to continue to distribute it as GNU FDL, even if he knows that you relicensed it to the GPL. As author, you can relicense your production as you want, without changing the licensed text (at your option). What about contributors who sent patches of maybe 5 lines? They'd have to be contacted as well, since they contributed to the FDL version and hence implicitly released their patch under the FDL, no? Indeed, they are also authors, they are also copyright holders. The only solution for you is to find an agreement with them or to remove their contribution from your code/documentation. Regards, -- Mathieu Roy Homepage: http://yeupou.coleumes.org Not a native english speaker: http://stock.coleumes.org/doc.php?i=/misc-files/flawed-english
Re: migrating away from the FDL
On Sat, Jul 19, 2003 at 11:24:01PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: Sorry, Wouter, I shouldn't have complained about your approach. Your request for help actually makes sense (it's just an ordinary relicensing question, after all). Fear of having to switch to FreeBSD provokes some rather clueless reactions on my part. I'm sorry. I guess clueless fears provoke clueless reactions... Enjoy your BSD system. -- G. Branden Robinson| Debian GNU/Linux | Music is the brandy of the damned. [EMAIL PROTECTED] | -- George Bernard Shaw http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | pgp8lbVTqr3Xh.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: migrating away from the FDL
On Sun, Jul 20, 2003 at 03:08:55PM +0200, Mathieu Roy wrote: From the perspective of the freedom the two projects protect, only the GNU project admit commercial activity directly... Er... what? -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer pgpSq4ulv3x4C.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: migrating away from the FDL
Thomas Hood [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: RMS is the philosopher king of the Free Software Foundation. Whether he is also autocratic, that is, a dictatorial ruler, I don't know because I am not a member of the FSF. As a GCC developer, I can tell you: He is autocratic. Sadly. --Nathanael
Re: migrating away from the FDL
Brian Calson said: I realize (and this is a gross generalization; please pardon me) that people that have stronger ties to the FSF and GNU are more likely to feel that the GFDL is free than those that have stronger ties to Debian. This may be true overall, but my sense is that among GCC developers, most believe that the GFDL is not free, at least if it includes Invariant Sections (which the GCC manual does). Many GCC developers appear to think that the manual doesn't *need to* be free, but that's a different matter. :-) (They are much like the Debian Developers who think that non-free non-programs should be allowed in Debian main, except that the GNU project *doesn't* promise that it will remain 100% free software, and Debian *does*.) --Nathanael
Re: migrating away from the FDL
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapoté : On Sun, Jul 20, 2003 at 03:08:55PM +0200, Mathieu Roy wrote: From the perspective of the freedom the two projects protect, only the GNU project admit commercial activity directly... Er... what? DFSG #1, Free redistribution - free as freedom, what GNU cares about too - free as beer, what GNU does not care about (but it's frequently a consequence of the first freedom) The French translation of the DFSG is even more obvious about that, explicitely yelling free beer! (« Redistribution libre _et gratuite_ »). Regards, -- Mathieu Roy Homepage: http://yeupou.coleumes.org Not a native english speaker: http://stock.coleumes.org/doc.php?i=/misc-files/flawed-english
Re: migrating away from the FDL
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapoté : Brian Calson said: I realize (and this is a gross generalization; please pardon me) that people that have stronger ties to the FSF and GNU are more likely to feel that the GFDL is free than those that have stronger ties to Debian. This may be true overall, but my sense is that among GCC developers, most believe that the GFDL is not free, at least if it includes Invariant Sections (which the GCC manual does). And are the gcc developers authors of this manual. If so, it's only up to them. except that the GNU project *doesn't* promise that it will remain 100% free software Are you kidding? The GNU project promises that every software will be free software and every documentation will be free documentation, both freedom as defined by the FSF. -- Mathieu Roy Homepage: http://yeupou.coleumes.org Not a native english speaker: http://stock.coleumes.org/doc.php?i=/misc-files/flawed-english
Re: migrating away from the FDL
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapoté : Thomas Hood [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: RMS is the philosopher king of the Free Software Foundation. Whether he is also autocratic, that is, a dictatorial ruler, I don't know because I am not a member of the FSF. As a GCC developer, I can tell you: He is autocratic. Sadly. According to the definition we brought to this list of autocracy (someone who thinks he got absolute power), I can discuss your point of view. RMS usually accept to read everyone's point of view (unless they are obviously offensive). So it cannot be that autocrat you're talking about. Indeed he leads some projects the way he wants to exactly and if you're in, you have to accept it or to leave. But he also gave you the freedom to take his software and to use it to make your own software. If every autocrat was giving the permission to execute / read / modify / redistribute their work, I wish to see many more autocrats out there. The way a project is managed/directed may only be an issue for people involved, in they can continue this project with another direction. In the GCC case, to name it, you're completely free to continue the project without RMS - but the project will not be the same at the end. That's all. -- Mathieu Roy Homepage: http://yeupou.coleumes.org Not a native english speaker: http://stock.coleumes.org/doc.php?i=/misc-files/flawed-english
Re: migrating away from the FDL
On Mon, Jul 21, 2003 at 05:57:17PM +0200, Mathieu Roy wrote: The way a project is managed/directed may only be an issue for people involved, in they can continue this project with another direction. In the GCC case, to name it, you're completely free to continue the project without RMS - but the project will not be the same at the end. That's all. As has, in fact, happened before (egcs). -- John
Re: migrating away from the FDL
Scripsit Mathieu Roy [EMAIL PROTECTED] DFSG #1, Free redistribution - free as freedom, what GNU cares about too - free as beer, what GNU does not care about (but it's frequently a consequence of the first freedom) The French translation of the DFSG is even more obvious about that, explicitely yelling free beer! (« Redistribution libre _et gratuite_ »). I'd call that a maltranslation. DFSG #1 explicitly stipulates that the freedom must include the freedom to *sell* copies of the software (at least if bundled with the Hello World program). -- Henning Makholm Jeg kunne ikke undgå at bemærke at han gik på hænder.
Re: migrating away from the FDL
On Mon, Jul 21, 2003 at 05:45:19PM +0200, Mathieu Roy wrote: From the perspective of the freedom the two projects protect, only the GNU project admit commercial activity directly... Er... what? DFSG #1, Free redistribution - free as freedom, what GNU cares about too - free as beer, what GNU does not care about (but it's frequently a consequence of the first freedom) The French translation of the DFSG is even more obvious about that, explicitely yelling free beer! (« Redistribution libre _et gratuite_ »). So apparently, the French translation of the DFSG is not altogether faithful to the original. Not that it matters; you'd have to be an absolute fool to think that the FSF's definition of freedom didn't also preclude licenses which *prevented* someone from giving the software away. (The body of DFSG #1, que la license ne doit pas *empêcher* qu'on donne le logiciel gratuitement, captures the English meaning accurately.) -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer pgpQnCBQnIeU1.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: migrating away from the FDL
On Sun, Jul 20, 2003 at 08:06:51PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote: Op zo 20-07-2003, om 13:06 schreef Andrew Suffield: A monarchy is an autocracy where (under normal circumstances) the monarch inherits their role, usually by blood relation or marriage. Well, seen the fact that RMS has always been the 'chief' of the FSF, this is still possible ;-) Not in the usual way, since RMS has promised not to reproduce. But he could still do the Roman thing and adopt an heir. Richard Braakman
Re: migrating away from the FDL
Mathieu Roy wrote: Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapoté : Thomas Hood [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: RMS is the philosopher king of the Free Software Foundation. Whether he is also autocratic, that is, a dictatorial ruler, I don't know because I am not a member of the FSF. As a GCC developer, I can tell you: He is autocratic. Sadly. According to the definition we brought to this list of autocracy (someone who thinks he got absolute power), I can discuss your point of view. He thinks he has absolute power *over the FSF*. He makes no claims regarding anything *else*. However, the FSF is run as his personal fiefdom, in which his opinion is final, no matter *what*. This is not normal for a charitable organization, and I don't think it's entirely healthy, either. Essentially, the FSF is run more like a private foundation than a public charitable foundation. RMS usually accept to read everyone's point of view (unless they are obviously offensive). So it cannot be that autocrat you're talking about. So do many autocrats. This is more a kindness given by the monarch to his subjects than anything else, and that's exactly the tone which seems to emanate from RMS. Indeed he leads some projects the way he wants to exactly and if you're in, you have to accept it or to leave. Which is fine to a certain extent; Linus Torvalds does the same thing with Linux. However, RMS treats the FSF (and all FSF projects) this way. This means that giving money to the FSF is really not significantly different from giving money to RMS personally to do with as he pleases. The Board of Directors appears to be ineffectual. *That* is unfortunate. I considered giving money to the FSF, but when I realized this, I decided it was a bad idea to do so. I'd rather give money to a real charitable organization than to an individual with erratic views. Your mileage may vary. I'm still willing to give copyrights to the FSF, but *only* because the 'grantback' term in the copyright assignment form gives me the right to relicense my work under the terms of my choice. But he also gave you the freedom to take his software and to use it to make your own software. If every autocrat was giving the permission to execute / read / modify / redistribute their work, I wish to see many more autocrats out there. Yes, that would be nice, wouldn't it? :-) -- This message, insofar as it was created by me, is released to the public domain.
Re: migrating away from the FDL
Mathieu Roy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And are the gcc developers authors of this manual. If so, it's only up to them. Don't you mean copyright holders instead of authors? Last I knew, GCC work required you to assign copyright to FSF, so I expect the manual is the same.
Re: migrating away from the FDL
MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Mathieu Roy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And are the gcc developers authors of this manual. If so, it's only up to them. Don't you mean copyright holders instead of authors? Last I knew, GCC work required you to assign copyright to FSF, so I expect the manual is the same. It depends, cf. http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2003-05/msg01926.html.
Re: migrating away from the FDL
Mathieu Roy wrote: My question is: what's the right way to do this? If all contributors agree, can I just drop the FDL from my 'legalese' paragraphs, replacing it with a reference to the GPL, or do I have to mention the fact that previous versions were licensed under the FDL? Do I have to wait for a new update of those documents, or can I just go ahead and change the license without changing the licensed text? Normally you can drop the ref. to the FDL completely. But note that if someone got a copy under the GNU FDL, he is free to continue to distribute it as GNU FDL, even if he knows that you relicensed it to the GPL. As author, you can relicense your production as you want, without changing the licensed text (at your option). What about contributors who sent patches of maybe 5 lines? They'd have to be contacted as well, since they contributed to the FDL version and hence implicitly released their patch under the FDL, no? Regards, Joey -- GNU GPL: The source will be with you... always. Please always Cc to me when replying to me on the lists.
Re: migrating away from the FDL
On Mon, Jul 21, 2003 at 08:50:49PM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote: Mathieu Roy wrote: My question is: what's the right way to do this? If all contributors agree, can I just drop the FDL from my 'legalese' paragraphs, replacing it with a reference to the GPL, or do I have to mention the fact that previous versions were licensed under the FDL? Do I have to wait for a new update of those documents, or can I just go ahead and change the license without changing the licensed text? Normally you can drop the ref. to the FDL completely. But note that if someone got a copy under the GNU FDL, he is free to continue to distribute it as GNU FDL, even if he knows that you relicensed it to the GPL. As author, you can relicense your production as you want, without changing the licensed text (at your option). What about contributors who sent patches of maybe 5 lines? They'd have to be contacted as well, since they contributed to the FDL version and hence implicitly released their patch under the FDL, no? A contribution of that size will probably not constitute copyright interest (too small). Accumulating several patches of this size from the same person would, though. The border is hazy here; I think the FSF usually throws a figure around in the region of 10-15 lines. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | pgppz5t5hpsYP.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: migrating away from the FDL
--- Dylan Thurston [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] please note that Richard Stallman does _not_ advocate different standards of freedom for documentation and for software, according to, for instance, http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200305/msg00593.html Any two things, no matter how unlike, can always be made to satisfy a single common description. (At minimum, they alike in both being things.) So it is not surprising that two rather different licenses can be made to satisfy the single description you quote below. The fact remains that the GPL grants more freedom than the FDL. Let me quote the relevant paragraph: Free documentation, like free software, refers to specific freedoms. It doesn't mean that you can do absolutely whatever you want to do. ... It means you can redistribute the work, change it (functionally), and redistribute modified versions. It is ok to have requirements on how you can do this, provided they don't prevent you from substantively making the functional changes you want to make. Note the provisos functionally and substantively. Obviously I don't speak for Debian, but I think most Debian developers would agree with the following. The freedoms granted to distributees should not be qualified any more than is necessary. The distributee should be granted not only the right to make functional changes, but the right to make any changes he or she sees fit. This right may be restricted -- Don't distribute any modified work under any other license!, perhaps, or Don't change the work such that it misrep- resents your upstream! And so on. But each such restriction must have a clear and compelling justification. In other words, I think that Debian has a higher standard of freedom than the FSF does. That is not surprising, given that Debian, unlike the FSF, is not a monarchy. Based on this, I believe that RMS would say that a program with an unremovable, unmodifiable, 10,000 word Ode to my goldfish and no other restrictions would be free software, although inconvenient. I haven't seen anyone from Debian defend that position yet. I don't think that RMS would say that the documentation+ode document was free. I think he would say that the goldfish ode was ... erm ... a red herring. An Invariant Section must be a Secondary Section, and A Secondary Section is a named appendix or a front-matter section of the Document that deals exclusively with the relationship of the publishers or authors of the Document to the Document's overall subject (or to related matters) and contains nothing that could fall directly within that overall subject. (Thus, if the Document is in part a textbook of mathematics, a Secondary Section may not explain any mathematics.) The relationship could be a matter of historical connection with the subject or with related matters, or of legal, commercial, philosophical, ethical or political position regarding them. [FDL v.1.2] This is a pretty restrictive condition on what can be dubbed Invariant. (It seems to have been crafted in order to describe the GNU manifesto.) The goldfish ode pretty clearly would not satisfy it. However, it isn't hard to imagine texts that would satisfy it and thus be eligible for immutability under the Invariant Sections clauses of the FDL. -- Thomas Hood Want to chat instantly with your online friends? Get the FREE Yahoo! Messenger http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com/
Re: migrating away from the FDL
To my knowledge, only a very vocal minority of Debian Developers argues for the removal of documentation licensed under the GFDL (and even their views are far from consistent). You guys might be putting the future of the project at risk, without actually realizing what you are doing. Virtually every person on this list finds the GFDL non-free in some situation. By on this list, you mean people that subscribed to this list? If so, you're wrong. I suscribed and it don't makes me considering the GFDL non-free. -- Mathieu Roy Homepage: http://yeupou.coleumes.org Not a native english speaker: http://stock.coleumes.org/doc.php?i=/misc-files/flawed-english
Re: migrating away from the FDL
By 'normal' writings, do you include documentation? If so, please note that Richard Stallman does _not_ advocate different standards of freedom for documentation and for software, according to, for instance, http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200305/msg00593.html Let me quote the relevant paragraph: Free documentation, like free software, refers to specific freedoms. It doesn't mean that you can do absolutely whatever you want to do. ... It means you can redistribute the work, change it (functionally), and redistribute modified versions. It is ok to have requirements on how you can do this, provided they don't prevent you from substantively making the functional changes you want to make. Note the provisos functionally and substantively. Based on this, I believe that RMS would say that a program with an unremovable, unmodifiable, 10,000 word Ode to my goldfish and no other restrictions would be free software, although inconvenient. I haven't seen anyone from Debian defend that position yet. If you want to know what rms consider as free software and what he do not consider as free software, please take a look at http://www.gnu.org, especially http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html You do not have to guess, to believe, what position he may defends because it's already explicitely stated. Regards, -- Mathieu Roy Homepage: http://yeupou.coleumes.org Not a native english speaker: http://stock.coleumes.org/doc.php?i=/misc-files/flawed-english
Re: migrating away from the FDL
On Sun, Jul 20, 2003 at 10:49:04AM +0200, Mathieu Roy wrote: Virtually every person on this list finds the GFDL non-free in some situation. By on this list, you mean people that subscribed to this list? If so, you're wrong. I suscribed and it don't makes me considering the GFDL non-free. vir·tu·al·ly adv. 1. In fact or to all purposes; practically. 2. Almost but not quite; nearly. -- Glenn Maynard
Re: migrating away from the FDL
Op zo 20-07-2003, om 10:49 schreef Mathieu Roy: To my knowledge, only a very vocal minority of Debian Developers argues for the removal of documentation licensed under the GFDL (and even their views are far from consistent). You guys might be putting the future of the project at risk, without actually realizing what you are doing. Virtually every person on this list finds the GFDL non-free in some ^ situation. By on this list, you mean people that subscribed to this list? If so, you're wrong. I suscribed and it don't makes me considering the GFDL non-free. You can read, can't you? ;-) -- Wouter Verhelst Debian GNU/Linux -- http://www.debian.org Nederlandstalige Linux-documentatie -- http://nl.linux.org An expert can usually spot the difference between a fake charge and a full one, but there are plenty of dead experts. -- National Geographic Channel, in a documentary about large African beasts.
Re: migrating away from the FDL
Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapoté : On Sun, Jul 20, 2003 at 10:49:04AM +0200, Mathieu Roy wrote: Virtually every person on this list finds the GFDL non-free in some situation. By on this list, you mean people that subscribed to this list? If so, you're wrong. I suscribed and it don't makes me considering the GFDL non-free. vir·tu·al·ly adv. 1. In fact or to all purposes; practically. 2. Almost but not quite; nearly. And you have valid statistics that makes you think that I'm _virtually_ the only exception? -- Mathieu Roy Homepage: http://yeupou.coleumes.org Not a native english speaker: http://stock.coleumes.org/doc.php?i=/misc-files/flawed-english
Re: migrating away from the FDL
On Sun, Jul 20, 2003 at 11:23:12AM +0200, Mathieu Roy wrote: And you have valid statistics that makes you think that I'm _virtually_ the only exception? The GFDL discussion has been going on for a long time; I'm sorry, but it's just not reasonable to claim that there are a significant number of people who disagree and every one of them is remaining silent. The only people I can recall claiming the GFDL is a clearly free license are at GNU. The point is that the discrediting claim that the GFDL arguments are from a vocal minority was false. As Florian withdrew his statement, this is a pointless debate, unless you're also making that claim. (It's pretty pointless anyway; the number of people who believe something but are unwilling or unable to defend that position is not very interesting.) -- Glenn Maynard
Re: migrating away from the FDL
Mathieu Roy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And you have valid statistics that makes you think that I'm _virtually_ the only exception? And you have valid statistics that make you think that you're not? Analyse the list archive and see what you find. -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know. Thought: Edwin A Abbott wrote about trouble with Windows in 1884
Re: migrating away from the FDL
On Sun, Jul 20, 2003 at 09:18:32AM +0100, J.D. Hood wrote: That is not surprising, given that Debian, unlike the FSF, is not a monarchy. ITYM autocracy. A monarchy is an autocracy where (under normal circumstances) the monarch inherits their role, usually by blood relation or marriage. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | pgpALP0TRcX5Y.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: migrating away from the FDL
--- Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sun, Jul 20, 2003 at 09:18:32AM +0100, J.D. Hood wrote: That is not surprising, given that Debian, unlike the FSF, is not a monarchy. ITYM autocracy. A monarchy is an autocracy where (under normal circumstances) the monarch inherits their role, usually by blood relation or marriage. The word 'monarchy' does not have to connote hereditary power. The Concise Oxford defines the word as meaning 'a supreme ruler'. It derives from Greek words meaning 'to rule' and 'alone'. Historically, not all monarchies were hereditary; some were even elected. RMS is the philosopher king of the Free Software Foundation. Whether he is also autocratic, that is, a dictatorial ruler, I don't know because I am not a member of the FSF. Cheers -- Thomas Want to chat instantly with your online friends? Get the FREE Yahoo! Messenger http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com/
Re: migrating away from the FDL
J.D. Hood [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapoté : --- Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sun, Jul 20, 2003 at 09:18:32AM +0100, J.D. Hood wrote: That is not surprising, given that Debian, unlike the FSF, is not a monarchy. ITYM autocracy. A monarchy is an autocracy where (under normal circumstances) the monarch inherits their role, usually by blood relation or marriage. The word 'monarchy' does not have to connote hereditary power. The Concise Oxford defines the word as meaning 'a supreme ruler'. It derives from Greek words meaning 'to rule' and 'alone'. Historically, not all monarchies were hereditary; some were even elected. RMS is the philosopher king of the Free Software Foundation. Whether he is also autocratic, that is, a dictatorial ruler, I don't know because I am not a member of the FSF. The word 'autocracy' is badly connoted but an autocrat is not more dictatorial than a king. His power got the same limits. The 'autocracy' usually refers to kings like Louis XIV, so-called 'absolutist'. Even if the FSF was an autocracy, it's important to understand that an autocracy is still a monarchy. The big difference is the capacity of the leader to make people think him as a supreme ruler, not his capacity to be actually a supreme ruler. Aside from that, the Debian project may seems more democratic (hum, it depends of what we call democracy) by comparison, but the FSF is not more dictatorial than many associations and not at all more dictatorial than any (or almost any) companies. Less freedom, maybe, but do most of the people on that list reject the idea of working in a company? J.D. Hood said that Debian has a higher standard of freedom than the FSF does but it's seems questionable to me. Indeed, how Debian is structured politically (ie. who can decide) is more democratic. But the freedom the project cares about are almost the same. From the perspective of the freedom the two projects protect, only the GNU project admit commercial activity directly... It could be used to tell that the GNU project provide more freedom, if we were about to compare which project is better in terms of freedom. But we are not, are we? This whole GNU FDL issue indeed show (minor) differences between Debian and GNU but I'm not sure this issue allows us to say This one is better than this other one in terms of freedom. Regards, -- Mathieu Roy Homepage: http://yeupou.coleumes.org Not a native english speaker: http://stock.coleumes.org/doc.php?i=/misc-files/flawed-english
Re: migrating away from the FDL
--- Mathieu Roy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But the freedom the project cares about are almost the same. [...] This whole GNU FDL issue indeed show (minor) differences between Debian and GNU but I'm not sure this issue allows us to say This one is better than this other one in terms of freedom. Yes. And what is most important is that Debian and the FSF continue to cooperate despite their differing slightly in their approaches. -- Thomas Want to chat instantly with your online friends? Get the FREE Yahoo! Messenger http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com/
Re: migrating away from the FDL
Op zo 20-07-2003, om 13:06 schreef Andrew Suffield: On Sun, Jul 20, 2003 at 09:18:32AM +0100, J.D. Hood wrote: That is not surprising, given that Debian, unlike the FSF, is not a monarchy. ITYM autocracy. A monarchy is an autocracy where (under normal circumstances) the monarch inherits their role, usually by blood relation or marriage. Well, seen the fact that RMS has always been the 'chief' of the FSF, this is still possible ;-) -- Wouter Verhelst Debian GNU/Linux -- http://www.debian.org Nederlandstalige Linux-documentatie -- http://nl.linux.org An expert can usually spot the difference between a fake charge and a full one, but there are plenty of dead experts. -- National Geographic Channel, in a documentary about large African beasts. signature.asc Description: Dit berichtdeel is digitaal ondertekend
Re: migrating away from the FDL
On Sun, Jul 20, 2003 at 10:49:04AM +0200, Mathieu Roy wrote: To my knowledge, only a very vocal minority of Debian Developers argues for the removal of documentation licensed under the GFDL (and even their views are far from consistent). You guys might be putting the future of the project at risk, without actually realizing what you are doing. Virtually every person on this list finds the GFDL non-free in some situation. By on this list, you mean people that subscribed to this list? On this list could also mean people who just pop in for the GFDL discussions, since I have no way of knowing if they're subscribed. If so, you're wrong. I suscribed and it don't makes me considering the GFDL non-free. I was not attempting to assert that by subscribing one automatically has a certain mindset; if that's what people think I meant, let me correct that right now. I used the term virtually because I realize that people (like you, perhaps) might disagree with the opinion of what appears to be the sweeping majority (at least that's what I see, by those who speak up; if you don't speak up, I don't know your opinion; I can't read minds) of people on this list. I realize (and this is a gross generalization; please pardon me) that people that have stronger ties to the FSF and GNU are more likely to feel that the GFDL is free than those that have stronger ties to Debian. The case might be that people who disagree with the statement the GFDL is non-free might not be saying anything and they might actually constitute the majority. I feel this an unlikely possibility, though. -- Brian M. Carlson [EMAIL PROTECTED] 0x560553e7 Let us think the unthinkable, let us do the undoable. Let us prepare to grapple with the ineffable itself, and see if we may not eff it after all. --Douglas Adams pgpRCsZxtCE3I.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: migrating away from the FDL
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Mathieu Roy wrote: ... Based on this, I believe that RMS would say that a program with an unremovable, unmodifiable, 10,000 word Ode to my goldfish and no other restrictions would be free software, although inconvenient. I haven't seen anyone from Debian defend that position yet. If you want to know what rms consider as free software and what he do not consider as free software, please take a look at http://www.gnu.org, especially http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html You do not have to guess, to believe, what position he may defends because it's already explicitely stated. I've read those, of course. More relevant to these hypothetical licences is http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html , which (if read carefully) also supports my position above. However, I am not RMS, and I can't apply the algorithms he would use to judge freeness, so there is a certain amount of guessing, since I know of no softwareq distributed under this hypothetical ode-ious license. Peace, Dylan
Re: migrating away from the FDL
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], J.D. Hood wrote: I believe that RMS would say that a program with an unremovable, unmodifiable, 10,000 word Ode to my goldfish and no other restrictions would be free software, although inconvenient. I haven't seen anyone from Debian defend that position yet. I don't think that RMS would say that the documentation+ode document was free. I think he would say that the goldfish ode was ... erm ... a red herring. An Invariant Section must be a Secondary Section, ... You go on to show that the documentation+ode could not be distributed under the GFDL; I don't see how that has any bearing on whether or not it is free. RMS would be the first to agree that not all free software need be distributable under the GPL, GFDL, or any other particular license. Peace, Dylan
Re: migrating away from the FDL
On Sat, Jul 19, 2003 at 06:26:17PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote: No, this is not a mail about large-scale bugs I intend to file about packages using the FDL. It's about 'how do I relicense stuff in non-FDL licenses'. In the past few years, I wrote some manpages and one larger document which I all licensed under the FDL. Although I did not read the FDL's text at the time, due to the fuzz I heard being made about the FDL I recently did so, and although I do not agree with all the arguments I've seen in this mailinglist's archives, I certainly do agree with some of them. As a result, I want to relicense all my FDL-licensed documents under another license (GPLv2). My question is: what's the right way to do this? If all contributors agree, can I just drop the FDL from my 'legalese' paragraphs, replacing it with a reference to the GPL, or do I have to mention the fact that previous versions were licensed under the FDL? Do I have to wait for a new update of those documents, or can I just go ahead and change the license without changing the licensed text? If the copyright holders all agree, you can relicense it however you want. There's no requirement that the work be changed before the license can be changed. -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer pgpprdUXzcTBO.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: migrating away from the FDL
Scripsit Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] My question is: what's the right way to do this? If all contributors agree, can I just drop the FDL from my 'legalese' paragraphs, replacing it with a reference to the GPL, Yes. or do I have to mention the fact that previous versions were licensed under the FDL? No. Do I have to wait for a new update of those documents, No. or can I just go ahead and change the license without changing the licensed text? Yes. -- Henning Makholm Punctuation, is? fun!
Re: migrating away from the FDL
My question is: what's the right way to do this? If all contributors agree, can I just drop the FDL from my 'legalese' paragraphs, replacing it with a reference to the GPL, or do I have to mention the fact that previous versions were licensed under the FDL? Do I have to wait for a new update of those documents, or can I just go ahead and change the license without changing the licensed text? Normally you can drop the ref. to the FDL completely. But note that if someone got a copy under the GNU FDL, he is free to continue to distribute it as GNU FDL, even if he knows that you relicensed it to the GPL. As author, you can relicense your production as you want, without changing the licensed text (at your option). (I'm not a lawyer! But I'm sure someone will object if I'm saying crap). Regards, -- Mathieu Roy Homepage: http://yeupou.coleumes.org Not a native english speaker: http://stock.coleumes.org/doc.php?i=/misc-files/flawed-english
Re: migrating away from the FDL
Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: No, this is not a mail about large-scale bugs I intend to file about packages using the FDL. It's about 'how do I relicense stuff in non-FDL licenses'. The next logical step is 'how do I rename Debian GNU/Linux' to 'Debian Linux', I presume. To my knowledge, only a very vocal minority of Debian Developers argues for the removal of documentation licensed under the GFDL (and even their views are far from consistent). You guys might be putting the future of the project at risk, without actually realizing what you are doing.
Re: migrating away from the FDL
--- Florian Weimer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: To my knowledge, only a very vocal minority of Debian Developers argues for the removal of documentation licensed under the GFDL (and even their views are far from consistent). No one has surveyed DDs on this question, have they? You guys might be putting the future of the project at risk, without actually realizing what you are doing. What sort of risk do you mean? I don't see the grave dangers that would arise if Debian were to decide that what it wants to include only free documents with the free software in its main archive and to relegate encumbered documents to an auxiliary archive. Debian and the FSF can survive disagreement on this point. -- Thomas Want to chat instantly with your online friends? Get the FREE Yahoo! Messenger http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com/
Re: migrating away from the FDL
Sorry, Wouter, I shouldn't have complained about your approach. Your request for help actually makes sense (it's just an ordinary relicensing question, after all). Fear of having to switch to FreeBSD provokes some rather clueless reactions on my part. I'm sorry.
Re: migrating away from the FDL
On Sat, Jul 19, 2003 at 10:40:50PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: No, this is not a mail about large-scale bugs I intend to file about packages using the FDL. It's about 'how do I relicense stuff in non-FDL licenses'. The next logical step is 'how do I rename Debian GNU/Linux' to 'Debian Linux', I presume. I think you are exaggerating a tad. This person came to us asking how to relicense software he wrote. We only gave him information on how to do so. If he wanted to relicense software in non-APSL licenses, we would have given him that information too (which would probably have been very similar). To my knowledge, only a very vocal minority of Debian Developers argues for the removal of documentation licensed under the GFDL (and even their views are far from consistent). You guys might be putting the future of the project at risk, without actually realizing what you are doing. Virtually every person on this list finds the GFDL non-free in some situation. Most of the people who you see as the vocal minority of DDs are people who are very vocal anyway. We've even had the original authors of some of the documentation complain that they didn't like what the FSF did by changing the licensing, but that they couldn't do anything about it. I'm not a DD, and I think it's non-free. You can see the bug on glibc about it. That's part of why glibc took forever to get into testing. Other bugs have been filed on gcc docs. This problem is not going away. Also, I don't see how the future of the project can be at risk over a non-free license. It is so obviously non-free that if it were a) by anyone else but the FSF and b) not so deeply ingrained in our archives, everything licensed under it would be extirpated from main at once. For example, look at section 4. If my original document included a section Entitled History that contained a 10,000 word Ode to My Goldfish (thank you whoever came up with that brilliant idea), nobody else could remove it. That would be obviously non-free. Let me take this opportunity, in case I haven't already, to announce that any document, software, or other copyrightable work that I have created or to which I hold copyright that is licensed under any version of the GNU Free Documentation License (including draft versions) is hereby licensed under the GNU General Public License, as published by the Free Software Foundation, version 2 only. That should take care of the GFDL'd manpage that I submitted to fix a bug. -- Brian M. Carlson [EMAIL PROTECTED] 0x560553e7 Let us think the unthinkable, let us do the undoable. Let us prepare to grapple with the ineffable itself, and see if we may not eff it after all. --Douglas Adams pgpP0NUjL8qqg.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: migrating away from the FDL
Op za 19-07-2003, om 22:40 schreef Florian Weimer: Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: No, this is not a mail about large-scale bugs I intend to file about packages using the FDL. It's about 'how do I relicense stuff in non-FDL licenses'. The next logical step is 'how do I rename Debian GNU/Linux' to 'Debian Linux', I presume. No, it is not. To my knowledge, only a very vocal minority of Debian Developers argues for the removal of documentation licensed under the GFDL (and even their views are far from consistent). You guys might be putting the future of the project at risk, without actually realizing what you are doing. Please do not consider me part of that 'vocal minority', as you describe it. It may not be my opinion that the FDL is suitable for things I, personally, wrote; that does not mean I consider it entirely non-free. In a similar, although opposing way, even though I certainly do consider the BSD license a free license, I would not consider it suitable for things I, personally, write. In fact, I have been considering one point the GNU project has pointed out by creating the FDL: the fact that software on the one hand and 'normal' writings on the other hand are two completely different things. I believe that many Debian Developers agreed with the DFSG because they are the Debian Free Software Guidelines, not the Debian Freeness Guidelines, or sth similar. However, since I'm currently still forming my opinion on that subject, I'd rather not discuss it -- at least not yet. -- Wouter Verhelst Debian GNU/Linux -- http://www.debian.org Nederlandstalige Linux-documentatie -- http://nl.linux.org An expert can usually spot the difference between a fake charge and a full one, but there are plenty of dead experts. -- National Geographic Channel, in a documentary about large African beasts. signature.asc Description: Dit berichtdeel is digitaal ondertekend
Re: migrating away from the FDL
On Sat, Jul 19, 2003 at 06:26:17PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote: No, this is not a mail about large-scale bugs I intend to file about packages using the FDL. It's about 'how do I relicense stuff in non-FDL licenses'. In the past few years, I wrote some manpages and one larger document which I all licensed under the FDL. Although I did not read the FDL's text at the time, due to the fuzz I heard being made about the FDL I recently did so, and although I do not agree with all the arguments I've seen in this mailinglist's archives, I certainly do agree with some of them. As a result, I want to relicense all my FDL-licensed documents under another license (GPLv2). My question is: what's the right way to do this? If all contributors agree, can I just drop the FDL from my 'legalese' paragraphs, replacing it with a reference to the GPL, or do I have to mention the fact that previous versions were licensed under the FDL? Do I have to wait for a new update of those documents, or can I just go ahead and change the license without changing the licensed text? Any insights would be appreciated. Seen this? http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200307/msg00052.html That's as bulletproof as I could make it. It should suffice in any reasonable jurisdiction. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | Dept. of Computing, `. `' | Imperial College, `- -- | London, UK pgpIi63joeURW.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: migrating away from the FDL
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Wouter Verhelst wrote: In fact, I have been considering one point the GNU project has pointed out by creating the FDL: the fact that software on the one hand and 'normal' writings on the other hand are two completely different things. I believe that many Debian Developers agreed with the DFSG because they are the Debian Free Software Guidelines, not the Debian Freeness Guidelines, or sth similar. However, since I'm currently still forming my opinion on that subject, I'd rather not discuss it -- at least not yet. By 'normal' writings, do you include documentation? If so, please note that Richard Stallman does _not_ advocate different standards of freedom for documentation and for software, according to, for instance, http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200305/msg00593.html Let me quote the relevant paragraph: Free documentation, like free software, refers to specific freedoms. It doesn't mean that you can do absolutely whatever you want to do. ... It means you can redistribute the work, change it (functionally), and redistribute modified versions. It is ok to have requirements on how you can do this, provided they don't prevent you from substantively making the functional changes you want to make. Note the provisos functionally and substantively. Based on this, I believe that RMS would say that a program with an unremovable, unmodifiable, 10,000 word Ode to my goldfish and no other restrictions would be free software, although inconvenient. I haven't seen anyone from Debian defend that position yet. Peace, Dylan (IANADD)
