Re: `free' in GNU and DSFG?
Hi, On Fri, Jun 08, 2012 at 08:13:30PM +0900, Hiroki Horiuchi wrote: # debian-user is no longer in To: After reading your words, I think that if talking *only* about non-free GFDLed document problem, the difference between DFSG and Free Software Definition does not matter. ... this may be a bit of over simplification. You should read the official documents and existing documentations. Moreover, I think that if talking *generally*, DFSG and Free Software Definition are not so different, and I am curious why DFSG had to be invented. You should to leran to use search engines and wikipedia to get such an complicated thing answered. Selfstudy is an essential skill needed to dig things around this FOSS world. As for the basics of DFSG, http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debianフリーソフトウェアガイドライン http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debian_Free_Software_Guidelines As for GFDL (as mentioned by others) for Debian http://www.debian.org/vote/2006/vote_001 we chose ammendment A (= option 2) As you can see from the result, we have different opinions on this matter and this is the formal decision. You should read all these proposal to see how we consider GFDL. As for the basic Debian history, http://www.debian.org/doc/misc-manuals#history (Japanese translation exists ...) Also, you should read see a Japanese document to the government which descrives something about your question. http://www.rieti.go.jp/it/policy/docs/what-is-opensource.pdf (I did not know this but google gave me a pointer.) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120616105853.GH23133@goofy.localdomain
Re: `free' in GNU and DSFG?
Hiroki Horiuchi from Japan After reading your words, now I think The Free Software Definition is really permissive, but this very *permissiveness* made GNU's definition insufficient for Debian Project. Am I right? I don't think so. The DFSG dates from 1997. The Free Software Definition only got that name around 2001. Back in 1998, there were only three freedoms... see http://web.archive.org/web/19980126185518/http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html Think of them as two parallel developments for similar concepts - one is a definition, the other is a set of guidelines to follow. Like http://people.debian.org/~bap/dfsg-faq#four_freedoms says: [the FSF's four freedoms] are the Free Software Foundation's articulation of what it believes all software users deserve. (Note that full exercise of Freedoms 1 and 3 requires access to the source code.) They are elegantly phrased, and arguably an improvement in some ways on the earlier DFSG. However they refer to exactly the same set of freedoms as the DFSG. If a license is inconsistent with the FSF's four freedoms, you can be sure that Debian will also consider it non-free. Hope that explains, -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/e1setts-00023h...@petrol.towers.org.uk
Re: `free' in GNU and DSFG?
MJ Ray m...@phonecoop.coop writes: Think of them as two parallel developments for similar concepts - one is a definition, the other is a set of guidelines to follow. Like http://people.debian.org/~bap/dfsg-faq#four_freedoms says: [the FSF's four freedoms] are the Free Software Foundation's articulation of what it believes all software users deserve. (Note that full exercise of Freedoms 1 and 3 requires access to the source code.) They are elegantly phrased, and arguably an improvement in some ways on the earlier DFSG. However they refer to exactly the same set of freedoms as the DFSG. If a license is inconsistent with the FSF's four freedoms, you can be sure that Debian will also consider it non-free. Right. Note well the subtlety in choosing the words. The above FAQ does *not* say “If the FSF considers a work non-free …”; rather, it says “If a license is inconsistent with the FSF's four freedoms …”. This determination then doesn't depend solely on FSF policy. Remember that the FSF chooses to apply different guidelines to different software works. They divide software works into exclusive categories by interpretation such as “program” (what the FSF calls “software”), “artistic work”, “program documentation”, “work of opinion”, etc.[0], and further imply that the one true category of interpretation for a work is to be determined by the copyright holder at the time of licensing the work, not by any of its recipients at the times they use it. Based on what the copyright holder considers to be the one true interpretation for a work, the FSF considers its recipients deserve different freedoms[1]. This without regard for whether any recipients might choose to interpret the work differently from the copyright holder. The FSF only considers works of software that copyright holders deem to be programs (what the FSF means by the term “software”) for its Free Software Definition. This is why they don't see an inconsistency in their promotion of the non-free FDL. They consider that if a work's copyright holder deems that a work is to be interpreted only as documentation, no recipients need the four freedoms of the FSD for that work. [0]: URL:https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html [1]: URL:http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/08/msg00807.html [2]: URL:http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/09/msg01221.html The Debian Project's social contract (§1, “Debian will remain 100% free”) requires that the DFSG applies to all works of software in Debian (“the Debian system and all its components”). This application of the guidelines is without limitation by what the copyright holders say about the interpretation of the work and without limitation on how any of its recipients will choose to interpret the work in any instance. So this is why the FSF might consider a work free (because it is not deemed to be a program, so they don't apply the FSD), while the Debian Project might consider the same work non-free (because regardless of whether it's interpreted as a program, its recipients must have exercise of the DFSG freedoms). The two definitions of software freedom are compatible. What is incompatible is who gets to determine the set of works for which those freedoms should be considered. The FSF says the copyright holders get to determine which works's recipients deserve the four freedoms; the Debian Project says all works in Debian must have freedom for all recipients of those works. -- \“When I was a baby I kept a diary. Recently I was re-reading | `\ it, it said ‘Day 1: Still tired from the move. Day 2: Everybody | _o__) talks to me like I'm an idiot.’” —Steven Wright | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87ehpkx7r7@benfinney.id.au
Re: `free' in GNU and DSFG?
# debian-user is no longer in To: After reading your words, I think that if talking *only* about non-free GFDLed document problem, the difference between DFSG and Free Software Definition does not matter. Moreover, I think that if talking *generally*, DFSG and Free Software Definition are not so different, and I am curious why DFSG had to be invented. Thank you. -- Hiroki Horiuchi from Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120608111330.ga...@a.19290.net
Re: `free' in GNU and DSFG?
On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 12:10 AM, Andrei POPESCU andreimpope...@gmail.com wrote: On Vi, 08 iun 12, 10:58:48, Hiroki Horiuchi wrote: After reading your words, now I think The Free Software Definition is really permissive, but this very *permissiveness* made GNU's definition insufficient for Debian Project. Not in my opinion. Take the example of the GFDL: a document with invariant sections does not have freedom 3. AFAIR the FSF's stance is that documentation is not software. Debian's stance is that a truly free software also has free documentation[1] and the GPL can and should be used for that as well (or at least not use the restrictive options of the GFDL)[2][3] Here's the relevent section directly from the GFDL[5]: 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. The Invariant Sections are certain Secondary Sections whose titles are designated, as being those of Invariant Sections, in the notice that says that the Document is released under this License. If a section does not fit the above definition of Secondary then it is not allowed to be designated as Invariant. The Document may contain zero Invariant Sections. If the Document does not identify any Invariant Sections then there are none. [5] http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html Basically, only Secondary sections can be invariant and Secondary sections can only outline the original author's connection to the subject matter, it can't contain any subject matter text at all (such inclusion is prohibited). I cannot think of a case where someone modifying the document would, when acting in a good faith manner, want to alter this text. Any alteration to this kind of text is, essentially, putting words in the mouth of the author. I do understand the Debian position, but I feel it's a solution looking for a problem. That said, I think the biggest unintended side-effect of Debian's position (and it's an ironic one) is that in this drive for purity, users are now *encouraged* to enable contrib and non-free in order to get access to documentation for their systems. The original intent was to bring cover Debian in an umbrella of purity with regards to Freedom, and the result is to encourage users to reject the Freedom offered through use of the main repository only in order to obtain something as basic as system documentation. Based on what is allowed in an invariant section, I can't see modification of those sections being ethical. I don't know, however, if they can be removed entirely (it would be reasonable to remove them if allowed, in my opinion). The license does indicate that a GFDL covered document might not contain any invariant sections -- would a GFDL document that has no invariant sections be considered Free under the current Debian guidelines? Or does the use of the GFDL at all automatically make the entire document non-free? [1] a complex software for which the only documentation is the source code is not very useful and there is no reason why the same liberties should not apply to documentation Those liberties do apply to the documention, as the parts of a GFDL document that actually document the software can never be declared invariant. That is forbidden by the license. See the example from the license itself: a textbook on mathematics cannot contain any mathematics in a secondary section, and only secondary sections may be invariant. [2] for an entity that preaches non-proliferation of licenses FSF has created quite a few... They have 4 licenses, all of which seem to serve a unique and necessary role: GPL, LGPL, AGPL, and GFDL. [3] before anyone here wants to argue that the GPL is meant for software only they should read it[4] Reading it or not, the author of the license has indicated that's his desire. -- Chris -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/caoevnyvb1vxscitqvfekkkcnpcucnn6v9zvgu8eg_oe3+x9...@mail.gmail.com
Re: `free' in GNU and DSFG?
Please see the threads that led to http://www.debian.org/vote/2006/vote_001 for exhaustive discussion about the GFDL vs. the DFSG. On 08/06/12 16:34, Christofer C. Bell wrote: I cannot think of a case where someone modifying the document would, when acting in a good faith manner, want to alter this text. That would be fine if we (either Debian when redistributing the document, or someone wanting to alter the document later) could delete them - but clause 4L, and the first paragraph of section 5, forbid that. would a GFDL document that has no invariant sections be considered Free under the current Debian guidelines? According to the General Resolution at http://www.debian.org/vote/2006/vote_001, yes. The GNU Libtool manual in libtool-doc is one example of a GFDL-with-no-invariant-sections document in main. (The GR was not unanimous - a significant number of Debian members would have preferred for libtool-doc to be excluded from main too.) They have 4 licenses, all of which seem to serve a unique and necessary role: GPL, LGPL, AGPL, and GFDL. The major reason I never want to put anything I write under the GFDL is that it has annoying practical consequences. The AGPL, GPL and LGPL (of the same version) are copyleft licenses with varying terms, but form a chain of compatible licenses in which you can combine works under any pair of those licenses, and put the result under the more restrictive license. The GFDL and GPL are mutually-incompatible copyleft licenses (each includes restrictions that the other does not), so you can't combine parts of a GPL'd work with parts of a GFDL'd work, under any license, unless you are the sole copyright holder on both. That's fine for GNU (the sole copyright holder on GNU projects, via copyright assignment), but an obstacle for the rest of the world. S -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4fd2210f.30...@debian.org
Re: `free' in GNU and DSFG?
# debian-legal@lists.debian.org is CCed. Sorry to be late. I would like to tell you the background of my last post. I was wondering why Free Software Definition was not sufficient for Debian Project. I thought this was permissive enough for the project. Once on twitter, I said that GNU's definition was more permissive than The Open Source Definition. But one of my followers replied that he did not think so. I could not understand what he meant, and I could not prove what I said. Then, I posted 20120531104258.ga31...@a.19290.net. After reading your words, now I think The Free Software Definition is really permissive, but this very *permissiveness* made GNU's definition insufficient for Debian Project. Am I right? -- Hiroki Horiuchi from Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120608015848.ga27...@a.19290.net
Re: `free' in GNU and DSFG?
Hiroki Horiuchi x19...@gmail.com writes: I would like to tell you the background of my last post. […] Then, I posted 20120531104258.ga31...@a.19290.net. For reference, that message was posted to ‘debian-user’ URL:http://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/20120531104258.ga31...@a.19290.net. I quote it here: Hiroki Horiuchi x19...@gmail.com writes: Hello. I know at least GFDL documents are not `free' in DFSG. In this respect, `free' in DFSG is narrower than the one in GNU. Is there any reverse case? Thank you in advance. -- Hiroki Horiuchi from Japan -- \ “The process by which banks create money is so simple that the | `\ mind is repelled.” —John Kenneth Galbraith, _Money: Whence It | _o__) Came, Where It Went_, 1975 | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/871ulq1jrv@benfinney.id.au
Re: `free' in GNU and DSFG?
Hiroki Horiuchi x19...@gmail.com writes: I was wondering why Free Software Definition was not sufficient for Debian Project. I thought this was permissive enough for the project. The issue is less to do with the Free Software Definition, and more to do with the FSF's position on how to apply that definition. The FSF officially apply the Free Software Definition only to programs, and not to other kinds of software. Debian's Free Software Guidelines apply to all the software (whether that software is interpreted as a program, a data file, a graphic image, an audio file, a document, or any other interpretation of digital information) in Debian. After reading your words, now I think The Free Software Definition is really permissive, but this very *permissiveness* made GNU's definition insufficient for Debian Project. Am I right? Rather, the FSF is much more narrow than the Debian Project in choosing what uses of a work should imply software freedom for the user. The FSF applies that freedom only to using software if that software is interpreted as a program, whereas the Debian Project requires the same freedoms to apply no matter how the software is interpreted. This is why the FSF does not consider it problematic to license software interpreted as documentation more restrictively (through the non-free provisions in the FDL) than software interpreted as programs (through the GPL, which is a free-software license). -- \ “Any intelligent fool can make things bigger and more complex… | `\It takes a touch of genius – and a lot of courage – to move in | _o__)the opposite direction.” —Albert Einstein | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87wr3iz8y1@benfinney.id.au
