>> Can I take this, then, as an admission that we willfully distribute >non-free >> software in main, and intend to continue doing so, because we >perceive >a >> lack of alternatives? (In the form of, for instance, public domain >> software) > >I should have put "software" in quotes, because I ask the question >using >the >definition of those that would define software as any bits of data that >we >distribute, and thus place all bits of data we distribute, including >RFCs >and the GPL, under the auspices of the GPL. I do not ascribe to that >view, >but I'm trying to push it to its logical conclusion.
I think indeed that Debian is willfully distributing non-free software in main. I certainly perceive a lack of alternatives. I would probably be OK with an amendment saying "Debian will remain 99.99999% free software". ;-) More honest, really. It would still be better than anyone else. An amendment saying "Debian will remain free software, except for the prologue of the GPL, which we wish was free but isn't," would be even better. (This would be a compromise, much like the patch-requirement clause.) Or, to be sillier, Debian could drop the GPL from Debian proper, but require anyone downloading any part of Debian to first download the non-free GPL text. This could actually be done.... However, I think a lot of this is missing the point. Any bits on a computer are software. But perhaps not all software requires the same freedoms to be fully free. Shall I attempt to apply/adapt the FSF's 'four freedoms' to documentation, and to licenses? * The freedom to run the program, for any purpose This should translate to: * The freedom to read the documentation, for any purpose GFDL seems OK here. Or to: * The freedom to apply the license, for any purpose GPL is fine there. * The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs. This should translate to: * The freedom to study how the documentation works, and adapt it to your needs. "Adapt it to your needs" is violated by the FDL "Invariant Section" requirements. Notably, the 'embedded' and 'reference card' examples apply (although RMS espoused a interesting theory involving "multiple volumes"). It's also very unclear whether it's satsified by embedding the documentation into a program. (What must you do with the Invariant Section? What the heck is a 'front-matter section' or 'named appendix' in a program anyway?) It's also violated whenever Invariant Sections are inaccurate. It is then impossible to make a fully accurate manual (which is a very reasonable need). There is absolutely no legal way to make a derivative of the technical text in the manual, under the GFDL, without including the "Invariant Section". The GFDL clause about 'not using technical measures to obstruct or control the reading or further copying of copies you make or distribute' is a very definite violation of this, now that I look at it. If your needs involve putting a copy on a restricted-access location, you can't. (The words 'make or' need to be stricken from that clause.) Of course, you also can't adapt the technical material to use it in a treatise on the subject of any of the Invariant Sections. Yes, freedom 1 is definitely the one the GFDL violates big time. This also translates to: * The freedom to study how the license works, and adapt it to your needs. Yep, you can do that with the GPL. This isn't even violated if the prologue is inaccurate, because use of the GPL's terms to create a new license is explicitly allowed. * The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor Yeah, this is fine everywhere. But oodles of non-free stuff satisfies *this*. * The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits This translates to: * The freedom to improve the documentation, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits Well, the GFDL sometimes allows this. But not if the improvement involves removing inaccurate Invariant Sections and Cover Texts. Or for that matter irrelevant Invariant Sections (which are at least somewhat irrelevant by definition!). This also translates to: * The freedom to improve the license, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits The GPL as a license text only partly satisfies this. Specifically, the prologue can't be improved and released to the public. But at least it satisfies the rest. :-/ As a *license* at least, it can be improved and released to the public. Incidentally, freedom 3 is one which the RFC's verbatim-only license violates big time: * The freedom to improve the standard, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits -- Nathanael Nerode <neroden at gcc.gnu.org> http://home.twcny.rr.com/nerode/neroden/fdl.html
