On Wed, Apr 04, 2001 at 09:05:31PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > On Wed, Apr 04, 2001 at 07:50:06PM +0100, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote: > > Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: [Reducto ad absurdum: GPL as example to show that maybe it isn't reasonable to apply the DFSG to all kinds of data]
Thank you for asking, Edmund. Hopefully some discussion will happen and more people will become epistemicly aware. I've come up with five types of content data for which I believe seperate classes of licensing make sense. 0) General-purpose executable code. 1) Non-GP code such as downloadable firmware/BIOS images. 2) Code metadata such as documentation, copyright, and license. 3) Human-parseable data such as images (inc. fonts) and sounds. 4) Human-language text (dictionary, fiction, etc) not covered by 2. Item 0 of course is represented by the DFSG. I believe the DFSG is inappropriate for all other items in at least one way. This post attempts to explain what my views are and invite discussion. The Debian Free Software Guidelines 1. Free Redistribution No issues 2. Source Code 3. Derived Works 4. Integrity of The Author's Source Code 5. No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups No issues 6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor No issues 7. Distribution of License No issues 8. License Must Not Be Specific to Debian No issues 9. License Must Not Contaminate Other Software No issues 10. Example Licenses (?) So the only sections I see that are not wholly appropriate for non-(GP code) are #2 and #(3,4) which go together. Class 1: * (derived works) I feel it may be so much more important to KNOW that the work has been modified by a third party, that these modifications be marked so, and accompanied by the unmodified version. * (source code) As firmware is meant to be loaded on a special-purpose peripheral device FOR the correct functioning of said device (such as a SCSI host adapter) and in general will not work on any different device (even a different model of host adapter in extreme case), source code is not important in the same way (the firmware binary may even BE the source code) and should not be required. * (note DFSG 6) Use of firmware on a 'device' emulated in GP code, even for the purpose of attempting to reverse-engineer the device or the firmware, cannot be forbidden by the firmware license. On the other hand, this may be forbidden by other law outside the scope of the license. Class 2: * (source code) Either plain text or SGML marked-up probably should be the prefered form. * (derived works) Presentation translation (such as printing the document, formatting it in an alternate documentation format, speaking it aloud, etc, should be allowed. Documentation of course should be able to be edited for technical accuracy against the code/process documented, and be translated. However.. * (derived works: copyright notice and license) These should allow 'unofficial' translations when distributed along with verbatim copies of the original. Derived works MUST be differentiated from the original (as in DFSG 4) so it is clear the work(s) the original license/copyright applies to is not intended to be covered by the derived license/copyright. Copyright may be appended (prepended) when creating a derived work from the covered work. * (I've probably mangled this part, but it should get the idea across) Class 3: * (source code) I'm not sure how this can consistantly apply. I mean (being somewhat facetious here) If I distribute an audio file of my saying the word 'fnord' does source code mean I have to include a duplicate of my body from the torso up? ;) * (derived works) Changes in presentation should always be allowed. Changes in content, even with a requirement that they be marked as 'unofficial' in some way, should be strongly encouraged but (possibly) not necessarily required. Class 4: * (source code) Probably doesn't even apply. But if it does, plain text or SGML marked-up should be the prefered form. * (derived works) Assuming everything else is met (redistribution, etc) and the license allows for changes in presentation, changes in content do not have to be allowed, but we should still encourage it.
