Re: GNU FDL and Debian
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: Dylan Thurston [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: To be precise, the reference you cited (thanks!) makes it clear that RMS considers the free in free software to apply only to the technical functionality of the work, whether the work is a program or documentation: he writes The problem is that the requirement to add a political essay *is* a restriction on the technical part. The technical part has one little bit that reaches out and grasps onto the nontechnical essay. And that one little grommet to which the nontechnical essay is attached is an uneditable part of the technical part. Err, who are you arguing against? I do not espouse the position above. You do a good job arguing against it, but it is unlikely that RMS will read what you wrote... (I'm also not someone you need to convince.) Peace, Dylan
Re: GNU FDL and Debian
Dylan Thurston [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Err, who are you arguing against? I do not espouse the position above. You do a good job arguing against it, but it is unlikely that RMS will read what you wrote... (I'm also not someone you need to convince.) I wasn't taking myself to be arguing against you. I was agreeing, and trying to restate the point as well as possible.
Re: GNU FDL and Debian
Sergey V. Spiridonov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It is clear for me, why FDL appears: it is needed to help technical writers earn money by writing free documentation for free software and to help publishers of free manuals make a profit from them [1]. That may be clear to you, but should we sacrifice the freedom to adapt the manuals to serve our needs in order to help technical writers earn money? Why not sacrifice a similar freedom in order to allow large splash screens with the software and help software writers earn money by writing free software? I also have seen little evidence that the technical writers earn more money from writing a FDL-covered work. I suspect that the FDL allows the *publishers* to earn more money than they would from a DSL (or maybe even GPL) covered work, but I have no evidence for that. Maybe someone has the numbers, but it's not a useful branch of debate at the moment because no-one with the numbers is giving them and I'm rather stuck on how to collect them. To me, the next step looks like either: 1. FSF gives more information about the FDL; or 2. [EMAIL PROTECTED] or suitable delegate publishes a statement summarising current position and FDL-covered work cannot be in main just now. I'd prefer 1 to happen, but 2 seems more likely. Both FSF and Debian agree that FDL-covered works are not free software, so it shouldn't cause a new rift: the groups already seem to disagree on whether it is reasonable to ask for a manual to be free software too. -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know. http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ jabber://[EMAIL PROTECTED] Creative copyleft computing services via http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ Thought: Edwin A Abbott wrote about trouble with Windows in 1884
Re: GNU FDL and Debian
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], MJ Ray wrote: ... Both FSF and Debian agree that FDL-covered works are not free software, ... To the best of my knowledge, this is not correct: RMS seems to argue that a manual published under the FDL is free in the free software sense, since you can make any functional changes you want. (I disagree with RMS, and I don't know it matters so much.) Peace, Dylan
Re: GNU FDL and Debian
Dylan Thurston [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], MJ Ray wrote: ... Both FSF and Debian agree that FDL-covered works are not free software, ... To the best of my knowledge, this is not correct: RMS seems to argue that a manual published under the FDL is free in the free software sense, since you can make any functional changes you want. That is not the same thing at all. I am sure that my statement is accurate, but I cannot justify it from material I can find to quote. I think it's pretty clear from http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200305/msg00640.html that RMS doesn't consider FDL-covered works to be free software or even that such a request is reasonable. Probably I shouldn't have put that statement quite that strongly, though. Sorry. There are two paths, near each other: 1. Ask for things to be under free licences and define free for each type of content individually; 2. Ask for everything to be free software. FSF seems to take path 1, Debian seems to take path 2. -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know. http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ jabber://[EMAIL PROTECTED] Creative copyleft computing services via http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ Thought: Edwin A Abbott wrote about trouble with Windows in 1884
Re: GNU FDL and Debian
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], MJ Ray wrote: Dylan Thurston [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], MJ Ray wrote: ... Both FSF and Debian agree that FDL-covered works are not free software, ... To the best of my knowledge, this is not correct: RMS seems to argue that a manual published under the FDL is free in the free software sense, since you can make any functional changes you want. That is not the same thing at all. I am sure that my statement is accurate, but I cannot justify it from material I can find to quote. I think it's pretty clear from http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200305/msg00640.html that RMS doesn't consider FDL-covered works to be free software or even that such a request is reasonable. Probably I shouldn't have put that statement quite that strongly, though. Sorry. There are two paths, near each other: 1. Ask for things to be under free licences and define free for each type of content individually; 2. Ask for everything to be free software. FSF seems to take path 1, Debian seems to take path 2. To be precise, the reference you cited (thanks!) makes it clear that RMS considers the free in free software to apply only to the technical functionality of the work, whether the work is a program or documentation: he writes I use that general criterion to evaluate the freedom to modify, for software and for manuals. However, software and manuals are used differently, so the licenses that meet the criterion for software are not necessarily the same as those that meet the criterion for manuals. For something that has no technical functionality, like a political essay, he wouldn't use the term at all. (Again, I disagree with his interpretation, and hope Debian rejects it.) Peace, Dylan Thurston
Re: GNU FDL and Debian
Dylan Thurston [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: To be precise, the reference you cited (thanks!) makes it clear that RMS considers the free in free software to apply only to the technical functionality of the work, whether the work is a program or documentation: he writes The problem is that the requirement to add a political essay *is* a restriction on the technical part. The technical part has one little bit that reaches out and grasps onto the nontechnical essay. And that one little grommet to which the nontechnical essay is attached is an uneditable part of the technical part. If I were really free to edit the technical parts however I wanted, I should be free to edit them by cutting loose all the nontechnical parts. One reason: because the technical parts might, for technical reasons, need to be abridged. Thomas
Re: GNU FDL and Debian
Jeremy Hankins said: On debian-legal, yes. But we've had very little actual discussion with anyone who admitted to representing the FSF position. In fact, that was one of the issues that came up in our brief discussions with RMS: is there anyone else who can authoritatively, or at least officially, discuss the issue? Since he's very busy, and (not entirely without reason) reluctant to discuss the issue in a context that he feels has become emotionally charged, that would be very useful. As far as I know, we never got an answer. We effectively got the answer No. I asked him if he could tell us of anyone else who could discuss the issue as a representative of the FSF, and he said No, I won't give you anyone else's name. So he is apparently the only person who can discuss the issue as a representative of the FSF, and he has outright refused to make any changes. It really is time for Debian to put out an official statement on the GFDL. Matthias Klose has said that he is waiting for an offficial statement before removing the non-free documentation from the GCC packages, even the ones with Invariant Sections. I'd really like this non-free stuff to be out of sarge (although there is an 'ignore-sarge' tag on the corresponding bug). I can't attempt to make an Official Debian Statement, since I'm not a DD. But people doing this should feel free to use any part of my webpage, as it's public domain. And Anthony Towns' (?) previous draft statement is good to lift from as well, presuming he doesn't mind. --Nathanael
Re: GNU FDL and Debian
Henning Makholm wrote: To the extent that the GFDL caters for the wishes of publishers at all, it is in that it makes it inconvenient for *competing* publishers to publish and sell hardcopies. It would not help a publisher that *he* has the text under GFDL if his competitors (or those that he perceives as competitors) have it under the GPL. Not quite true. The GPL publication would require the inclusion of source code, or an offer to provide source code, in machine-readable form. Meaning for instance the texinfo, LaTeX, or similar code on a disk or CD. Publication under GFDL would not have this requirement. Hardcopy publishers would be fairly likely to choose the GFDL rather than the GPL simply due to this. RMS, unfortunately, has shown zero interest in dual-licensing FSF GFDL'ed manuals under the GPL, presumably because he cannot give up unremovable Invariant Sections. It is unfortunate that he is the FSF autocrat and does not allow anyone else to influence the FSF policy on this. -- Nathanael Nerode neroden at gcc.gnu.org http://home.twcny.rr.com/nerode/neroden/fdl.html
Re: GNU FDL and Debian
On Wed, 23 Jul 2003 11:28:36 -0400 Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sergey V. Spiridonov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: It is clear for me, why FDL appears: it is needed to help technical writers earn money by writing free documentation for free software and to help publishers of free manuals make a profit from them [1]. It is clear for me, why some debian members are not willing to have documentation licensed under FDL in Debian: they do not want to violate DFSG [2]. 1. http://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-gfdl.html 2. http://www.debian.org/social_contract.en.html#guidelines The problem here is that (without going into the details) communication between the FSF and Debian seems to have broken down. Though I cannot say that I entirely understand the perspective of the FSF and so cannot speak to that, I do think that Debian has legitimate concerns about the freedom of the GFDL. There has been continuing discussion and debate on the GFDL for what, years now? There has been no breakdown of communication. There problem here is that the FSF considers the GFDL as a Free license, or at least free enough. Debian does not. Pretty simple, it's difficult for me to understand how people miss it :) pgpKEHjdwR7fV.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: GNU FDL and Debian
David B Harris [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The problem here is that (without going into the details) communication between the FSF and Debian seems to have broken down. Though I cannot say that I entirely understand the perspective of the FSF and so cannot speak to that, I do think that Debian has legitimate concerns about the freedom of the GFDL. There has been continuing discussion and debate on the GFDL for what, years now? There has been no breakdown of communication. On debian-legal, yes. But we've had very little actual discussion with anyone who admitted to representing the FSF position. In fact, that was one of the issues that came up in our brief discussions with RMS: is there anyone else who can authoritatively, or at least officially, discuss the issue? Since he's very busy, and (not entirely without reason) reluctant to discuss the issue in a context that he feels has become emotionally charged, that would be very useful. As far as I know, we never got an answer. There problem here is that the FSF considers the GFDL as a Free license, or at least free enough. Debian does not. Pretty simple, it's difficult for me to understand how people miss it :) Sure, that's definitely the core issue. But ideally it would be possible to discuss the issue -- at least to the point where we're all sure we understand each other. That (IMHO) hasn't really happened. -- Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED] PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333 9E10 D212 B5ED 37D0 0A03
Re: GNU FDL and Debian
... To the extent that the GFDL caters for the wishes of publishers at all, it is in that it makes it inconvenient for *competing* publishers to publish and sell hardcopies. ... I'm not quite tracking you there. The GFDL isn't supposed to have that effect, at least as I read it, and as I understood RMS's messages. Maybe it does though, but even if so that's not really the point. The FSF wouldn't consider such an effect desirable, so that's not a reason they'd use to decide against going dual GFDL/GPL.
Re: GNU FDL and Debian
Scripsit Barak Pearlmutter [EMAIL PROTECTED] ... To the extent that the GFDL caters for the wishes of publishers at all, it is in that it makes it inconvenient for *competing* publishers to publish and sell hardcopies. ... I'm not quite tracking you there. The GFDL isn't supposed to have that effect, at least as I read it, and as I understood RMS's messages. It's the only reason I can see why a publisher would prefer GFDL to plain GPL. Do you see something that I'm missing? Maybe it does though, but even if so that's not really the point. The FSF wouldn't consider such an effect desirable, Sure? In many cases the FSF itself is the publisher, hence the mandatory Cover Texts on GNU manuals saying that you're a bad person if you buy a hardcopy not published by the FSF. -- Henning Makholm Han råber og skriger, vakler ud på kørebanen og ind på fortorvet igen, hæver knytnæven mod en bil, hilser overmådigt venligt på en mor med barn, bryder ud i sang og stiller sig til sidst op og pisser i en port.
Re: GNU FDL and Debian
On Wed, Jul 23, 2003 at 04:17:38AM +0200, Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote: It is clear for me, why FDL appears: it is needed to help technical writers earn money by writing free documentation for free software and to help publishers of free manuals make a profit from them [1]. snip I like FSF and I like Debian. So, I ask you (FSF and Debian) to find a solution. Both goals are important. I (user) need documentation and I (user) need free software. Please, find a compromise! The Debian project has no interest in the profit margins of publishers of free manuals. This goal is not a concern of ours. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | pgpiCVIQSdqyt.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: GNU FDL and Debian
Sergey V. Spiridonov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: It is clear for me, why FDL appears: it is needed to help technical writers earn money by writing free documentation for free software and to help publishers of free manuals make a profit from them [1]. It is clear for me, why some debian members are not willing to have documentation licensed under FDL in Debian: they do not want to violate DFSG [2]. 1. http://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-gfdl.html 2. http://www.debian.org/social_contract.en.html#guidelines We (though IANA Debian Developer, so YMMV) have nothing against profit margins. So the fact that someone is concerned about them does not mean we cannot reach some sort of compromise with them. The problem here is that (without going into the details) communication between the FSF and Debian seems to have broken down. Though I cannot say that I entirely understand the perspective of the FSF and so cannot speak to that, I do think that Debian has legitimate concerns about the freedom of the GFDL. I like and respect both the FSF and Debian as well, but I'm (sadly) pessimistic about the chances for a solution to the problem. RMS did briefly discuss the issue on d-l (which we appreciate very much), but we weren't able to reach an understanding. So unless something to change the situation turns up soon, I have a feeling that Debian will have to grit its collective teeth and remove GFDL licensed works from debian main. I fervently hope that this does not cause long-term problems between two organizations with so much in common. (Speaking only for myself, of course.) -- Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED] PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333 9E10 D212 B5ED 37D0 0A03
Re: GNU FDL and Debian
From: Sergey V. Spiridonov [EMAIL PROTECTED] I like FSF and I like Debian. So, I ask you (FSF and Debian) to find a solution. Both goals are important. I (user) need documentation and I (user) need free software. Please, find a compromise! You are absolutely right. Failure to find a workable solution will hurt both organizations, and free software in general. Debian is aware of this - we have moved very slowly for this very reason, and would quite like to find a happy resolution. Here is one proposed compromise. This was suggested earlier, and although the FSF did not adopt it neither did they reject it or even critique it. So it might be workable; I don't know. Since the FSF felt that publishers could not use the GNU GPL for printed documentation, they adopted the GFDL for their manuals, to allow printed publication under terms they felt publishers would find acceptable. (The correctness of their reasoning is irrelevant for our current purposes, so please let's not get into it.) On the other hand, Debian has serious issues with the GFDL, some of which apply mainly to its use in the context of non-printed (digital) distribution. Debian also has some convenience issues, the foremost being that the GFDL is not GPL-compatible. One bit of contention is whether some of the issues identified by Debian are issues of freedom or mere issues of convenience. (Everyone however does agree that the GPL-compatibility issue is one of just convenience. There is disagreement even there over the magnitude of the inconvenience though.) A solution that springs to mind is for the FSF to re-license manuals under a dual license: GFDL/GPL. This would solve all the issues in one stroke. It would also render the freedom vs just convenience issue moot. Debian has a general policy of respecting upstream desires in our contributed code. In this case, Debian would I'm sure be happy to respect the FSF's desires and place its contributions under a dual GFDL/GPL.
GNU FDL and Debian
Hi, It is clear for me, why FDL appears: it is needed to help technical writers earn money by writing free documentation for free software and to help publishers of free manuals make a profit from them [1]. It is clear for me, why some debian members are not willing to have documentation licensed under FDL in Debian: they do not want to violate DFSG [2]. 1. http://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-gfdl.html 2. http://www.debian.org/social_contract.en.html#guidelines I like FSF and I like Debian. So, I ask you (FSF and Debian) to find a solution. Both goals are important. I (user) need documentation and I (user) need free software. Please, find a compromise! I am not debian package maintainer and I did not produce a piece of the free software till now (just some bug reports). Thank you. -- Best regards, Sergey Spiridonov
