Re: (DRAFT) FAQ on documentation licensing

[Nathanael Nerode]

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//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

[Nathanael Nerode]

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...


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

[Jacobo Tarrio]

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

[evan]

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

[Jacobo Tarrio]

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

[Francesco Poli]

On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 10:15:25 +0200 Jacobo Tarrio wrote:

> 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".

Well, not really.
Copyright ones are not the only issues that matter when we check whether
a work is DFSG-free.
The work could fail to grant the freedoms we value for other reasons
(actively enforced software patents, too restrictive trademarks, and so
forth).

I repropose "if a particular /work/ is free or not."

[...]
> > [...] 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 :-)

It seems like a good clarification...

[...]
> > [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).

Wow!  :)


-- 
:-(   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


pgp2x7U6adbV1.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: (DRAFT) FAQ on documentation licensing

[Jacobo Tarrio]

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

[Anthony DeRobertis]

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

[Anthony DeRobertis]

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

[Jacobo Tarrio]

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

[Evan Prodromou]

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

[Glenn Maynard]

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

[Jacobo Tarrio]

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

[Andrew Suffield]

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

[Jacobo Tarrio]

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

[Francesco Poli]

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

Re: (DRAFT) FAQ on documentation licensing

[Francesco Poli]

On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 16:56:04 +0100 Andrew Suffield wrote:

> On Wed, Apr 13, 2005 at 04:14:23PM +0200, Jacobo Tarrio wrote:
> > 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).

I'm not convinced: a copy of the GNU Emacs manual printed on paper is
still software, just like the source (or even the binary in hexadecimal)
of a program printed on paper. It's information that may be processed by
a computer system: it's just stored on an unpractical physical support
(paper).

The manual on paper is obviously documentation as well.

-- 
:-(   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


pgp3CVxl318lI.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: (DRAFT) FAQ on documentation licensing

[Jacobo Tarrio]

O Mércores, 13 de Abril de 2005 ás 11:10:00 -0600, doug jensen escribía:

> > nobody should be allowed to represent the author's position by modifying
> Should "represent" be changed to "misrepresent"?

 Oh, yeah. Oops :-)

-- 
   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

[Jacobo Tarrio]

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

[doug jensen]

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

[Andrew Suffield]

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

[Roger Leigh]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> On Wed, Apr 13, 2005 at 04:14:23PM +0200, Jacobo Tarrio wrote:
>> 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).

I'd make that a "definitely", since you can run it directly through
TeX, and all of the "@" commands are in fact TeX macros (from
texinfo.tex).


- -- 
Roger Leigh
Printing on GNU/Linux?  http://gimp-print.sourceforge.net/
Debian GNU/Linuxhttp://www.debian.org/
GPG Public Key: 0x25BFB848.  Please sign and encrypt your mail.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.5.8 

iD8DBQFCXUxRVcFcaSW/uEgRAqbeAKCGU6T9GCphvMElofQPRwP5KyX/pACgp82Y
p+UJLjWEOY+GqnGIgZIhlsk=
=Dib/
-END PGP SIGNATURE-


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: (DRAFT) FAQ on documentation licensing

[Jacobo Tarrio]

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

[Andrew Suffield]

On Wed, Apr 13, 2005 at 04:14:23PM +0200, Jacobo Tarrio wrote:
> 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).

-- 
  .''`.  ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
 : :' :  http://www.debian.org/ |
 `. `'  |
   `- -><-  |


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

(DRAFT) FAQ on documentation licensing

[Jacobo Tarrio]

 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...



 Q: Why does Debian apply the DFSG to the GFDL (and other licenses)?

 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. Everything that
is distributed by Debian in its "main" distribution must be free, so the
DFSG are the criteria to be applied.



 Q: But the GFDL (and other licenses) are not software licenses, but
documentation licenses. Software and documentation are not the same thing.

 A: Even if by "software" you mean "programs", there's not always a
clear-cut distinction between programs and electronic documents. For
example, a Postscript file may contain the full text of the GNU Emacs manual
(that is a document), but it is really a program which is interpreted by
Postscript-capable printers to render that text on paper. Other examples
include literate programming (a style of writing programs in which what is
really written is an essay about how a program works, with code snippets) or
javadoc-like documentation embedded in program source code.

Of course, a copy of the GNU Emacs manual printed on dead trees is
unequivocally documentation, but Debian doesn't distribute physical goods,
so this example is irrelevant to the question.



 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.



 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.

 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.

 In other words, one should be allowed by the license to write a document
derived from RFC 2822 and titled "New proposed extensions to SMTP", or a
document titled "A layperson's comments on the GNU Manifesto" which was made
by modifying the GNU Manifesto itself.

 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.



 Q: The authors of a document or a literary work deserve to be credited.
They should be able to add a restriction to the license so that their
names must be displayed prominently on the front cover. Shouldn't such a
license be considered free?

 A: Debian would normally consider free a license that mandated that the
name of the authors appear "along with other credits" or something like
that. Specifying the form the credit must take, or its exact wording, or
where it must appear, are restrictions that aren't generally considered
free. Additionally, they have some problems of their own. For example,
how do you display a name prominently on the front cover of a text file? Or
what if someone makes a compilation of texts; should all names appear
prominently on the front cover?

Also, authors of programs deserve to be credited as well, and similar
restrictions have already considered non-free. For example, a license
that says that a three-screen credits text must appear on startup would be
unacceptable.

-- 
   Jacobo Tarrío | http://jacobo.tarrio.org/


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]