"Alfred M\. Szmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > So what would you call the expanded "credit" clause that seeks to > > entice legacy publishers to use FDL rather than a free software > > licence? > > What do you mean? What `credit' clause?
Clause 4. > I don't see any `credit' clause in the GFDL. Do you really see nothing requiring credit of the licensors? > I don't even see any clause that tries to `entice > legacy publishers to use the GFDL'. [...] That's always been one of the main motives for the FDL. See: "The GFDL is meant as a way to enlist commercial publishers [...]" - Richard Stallman, "Why publishers should use the GNU FDL", online at http://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-gfdl.html > > and has no `encyclopedia' problems, > > How could one include parts from the FDL'd Emacs manual in a FDL'd > "Encyclopedia of GNU"? It looks like one must beg FSF's permission, > as relying on a "fair dealing" defence would limit uses. > > You simply include it, and follow the license. If one tried to include part of the Emacs manual in a work about GNU in general, one could not follow the licence: the GNU Manifesto and the GPL would be about the main topic, so no longer Secondary, so could not be included as Invariant, which is required by the licence. > It seems that you haven't read the GFDL at all, maybe you should > do that before basing your arguments on cloudy opinions. [...] I have read the FDL closely, more than some @gnu it seems. > > I don't think that's a good example. Even today, many sites seem to > > ignore the FDL's terms when modifying Wikipedia and the Wikipedia > > FDL story includes questionable relicensing to remove invariant > > sections. See near the end of > > http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/05/msg00565.html by Barak > > Pearlmutter: [...] > So you go about and quoting things from people who are simply > irrelevant. Why can't you show a single specific case? I don't see > Wikipedia getting burnt, I see Wikipedia thriving. [...] You see nothing wrong with a project leading arbitrarily relicensing a project that they hold no copyright assignments for? If so, we're probably never going to agree on an example and I'm surprised that someone @gnu doesn't see problems of relicensing without CAs. > [...] If it is so simple, you could atleast point me > to one of these `numerous FAQs', I'm not sure what they try to answer. http://people.debian.org/~srivasta/Position_Statement.html and http://home.twcny.rr.com/nerode/neroden/fdl.html for starters. > FAQ's aren't software after all, Some FAQs are software (some are even kept as programs, either in general-purpose languages or specialised ones like latex or PostScript.) > and your claim is that the GFDL is `unusable for free software'. > So once again, I ask you for concrete examples. As an example, I suggest all FDL manuals, none of which are free software, whether programs or otherwise. > > UTUTO-e has included non-free software programs in error (such as > > Macromedia Flash and Sun Java - sadly > > http://gnu-friends.org/comments/2004/4/14/143042/957?pid=4#5 has > > vanished) and still includes non-free software manuals. > > It includes manuals for non-free software? That seems silly. Could > you point out which manuals so that they can be removed? Here's the parse tree I intended: (((non-)(free software)) (manuals)) > People make mistakes, if one tries to fix them, then all is good. > Debian refuses to fix their mistakes by continued promotion of > non-free software, and the exclusion of free documentation. Debian does not promote non-free software. It just is on some debian mirrors, which is a similar situation to GNU mirrors. "If one tries to fix them, then all is good" yet you give debian developers no credit for trying to drop non-free regularly. Amusingly, FDL advocates seemed a significant force against dropping non-free last time. Excluding so-called "free documentation" adware is a feature not a bug. Free software needs manuals that are free software too. > > Debian doesn't include non-free software in the distribution, > > promises not to and whenever it happens, that's a serious bug. > > The debian bug tracker doesn't require passwords for most use. > > Debian does include non-free software. It's not in the distribution, it's not on the CDs. > It promotes its usage by > giving space to host it. Even Fedora is a better bet when it comes to > completely free GNU/Linux systems from the looks. That the Debian > community tries to brush this away with `Oh, but it isn't in the > _MAIN_ repository! So all is OK'. What would you think about the GNU > project and the GNU system having a specific section hosting non-free > software? I'm quite sure that you would think that would be > hypocritical, atleast I would. According to http://www.gnu.org/server/mirror.html#MirrorFTP the hub of the GNU mirror network (and so the equivalent of ftp-master.debian.org) is ftp.ibiblio.org, which hosts software far more proprietary than even non-free on debian mirrors. Yes, I do think it's hypocritical that some @gnu take such a hard line against debian while most of the GNU mirrors do the same. Why aren't you calling on GNU to stop promoting non-free software? [...] > Considering the hostility one recives from the Debian community when > on tries to raise this, it might be a good thing for people to switch > to other systems, that respect users freedoms; like for example > UTUTO-e, BLAG or Dynebolic. I think you mean "effective freedoms". Some freedoms seem to be considered unnecessary by UTUTO-e. BLAG's pretty good, although both it and Dynebolic seem to include software called "non-free" by RMS in the past[1]. I can't see an easy way to check whether that's actually the case at present, or if they've followed his advice to strip the non-free parts and recompile from sources. [1] - http://www.ofb.biz/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=353 Considering the hostility one recieves from the GNU community when discussing manuals, one can see why others think it a good thing to switch to other licences. -- MJR/slef _______________________________________________ Discussion mailing list [email protected] https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
