Re: [free-software-melb] GNU FDL and software freedom
Adrian Colomitchi acolomit...@gmail.com writes: 1. there is a distinction between documentation and application software, even if the distinction is not located in the bitstreams. Consequence: I cannot agree with the assertion of one can treat documentation the same way as one can treat application (source) code; therefore, why does one need FDL when GPL is already there? That's not an assertion, it seems to be phrased as an assertion. Nevertheless, it *is* incumbent on those proposing the FDL to show why a more restrictive license is appropriate. I've shown that “because the copyright holder decrees that this work won't be used as anything but a document” is not a justification for those restrictions. In other words, I see the assertion of FDL is not as free for documentation as GPL is for application software as irrelevant The point is rather that the *self-same work* can be both program and documentation – either right now, or in some future derived work. And the copyright holder can't decree when that might be the case in some derived work, so shouldn't be making that decision for future recipients in order to restrict their freedoms. -- \“Choose mnemonic identifiers. If you can't remember what | `\mnemonic means, you've got a problem.” —Larry Wall | _o__) | Ben Finney ___ Free-software-melb mailing list Free-software-melb@lists.softwarefreedom.com.au http://lists.softwarefreedom.com.au/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/free-software-melb Free Software Melbourne home page: http://www.freesoftware.asn.au/melb/
Re: [free-software-melb] GNU FDL and software freedom
On Tue, 2013-07-23 at 23:09 +1000, Ben Finney wrote: Adrian Colomitchi acolomit...@gmail.com writes: 1. there is a distinction between documentation and application software, even if the distinction is not located in the bitstreams. Consequence: I cannot agree with the assertion of one can treat documentation the same way as one can treat application (source) code; therefore, why does one need FDL when GPL is already there? That's not an assertion, it seems to be phrased as an assertion. Nevertheless, it *is* incumbent on those proposing the FDL to show why a more restrictive license is appropriate. I've shown that “because the copyright holder decrees that this work won't be used as anything but a document” is not a justification for those restrictions. The way I see the things: the protection of the copyright are supporting the restrictions imposed by the author *only when* the work is used as a document(ation), and not *because* the author decrees it has to be used as a documentation. In other words, I see the assertion of FDL is not as free for documentation as GPL is for application software as irrelevant The point is rather that the *self-same work* can be both program and documentation – either right now, or in some future derived work. And the copyright holder can't decree when that might be the case in some derived work, so shouldn't be making that decision for future recipients in order to restrict their freedoms. Still irrelevant in my opinion (as the argumentation hinges on the format/encoding and not targeting the form of expression). The form of expression as a documentation is protected by the copyright law and the copyright law will protect it no matter the *format* (bitmap or PS/PDF or printed or anything). But any other works derived from the said documentation that are used *for other purposes* won't be restricted by copyright law, no matter the license under which the original documentation is published. The copyright law will not protect the original documentation again a whole heap of actions. One can freely: a. use the documentation to write a book about the documented product. Why, you are even allowed to include parts of the original document, as long as it's clear that you cite/quote from the original doc! b. parse the documentation and derive a source code for your needs - note: this assumes the document is indeed *released as a documentation* and not a source code listing; c. print it as Postcript and use the subroutines defined by the documentation in the Postscript dictionary to compute the first 1000 digits of PI. Or change the data those subroutines applies on to draw a huge outline of the classical pose of Marilyn Monroe above the subway grate in the The 7 years itch movie. The copyright law will *not* protect the Postcript code, only the rendering of that postscript that results in the original documentation. d. use the documentation to sing it (make a musical arrangement and transform it in an 10-hours boring opera; or transpile the letters or words in the documentation on notes/rhythm/instruments somehow and distribute it as a sheet music) e. print the documentation and use the paper to build a huge origami statue. Now, you may say the above examples are far fetched and quite distant from scenarios in which the freedom of the reader is *unfairly* constrained, and you are likely to be right (except maybe points a. and b.). If so, please feel free to add to this conversation some scenarios in which the freedom of the recipient is seriously and negatively impaired and this gives an *unfair* advantage to the author. I'm not saying such cases don't exist, I simply put out the conjecture that such cases are rare and can easily be worked-around inside the current copyright laws; so much so that the issue of finding a better substitute for GNU FDL may not worth the effort for an overreaching crusade. Adrian ___ Free-software-melb mailing list Free-software-melb@lists.softwarefreedom.com.au http://lists.softwarefreedom.com.au/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/free-software-melb Free Software Melbourne home page: http://www.freesoftware.asn.au/melb/
Re: [free-software-melb] GNU FDL and software freedom
Adrian Colomitchi acolomit...@gmail.com writes: On Tue, 2013-07-23 at 23:09 +1000, Ben Finney wrote: I've shown that “because the copyright holder decrees that this work won't be used as anything but a document” is not a justification for those restrictions. The way I see the things: the protection of the copyright are supporting the restrictions imposed by the author *only when* the work is used as a document(ation), and not *because* the author decrees it has to be used as a documentation. Then the FDL is a terrible tool for that, because it applies to the work no matter how the recipient wants to interpret the work. This is support for avoiding such restrictive licenses (such as FDL), and sticking to licenses (such as GPL) that maintain all the software freedoms for the work regardless how the work is interpreted by the recipient. But any other works derived from the said documentation that are used *for other purposes* won't be restricted by copyright law, no matter the license under which the original documentation is published. That seems flatly false. Copyright applies (or does not apply) to a work regardless of the purpose the recipient has for it. If you receive a work under the FDL, it applies whether you want to use it as documentation or music or a program or whatever. So if the FDL is too restrictive for some valid interpretations of *any* work, then restricting any work that way is unjust because it's unjust for the copyright holder to rule out otherwise valid interpretations of the work. The copyright law will not protect the original documentation again a whole heap of actions. One can freely: All these examples don't seem relevant to the point I was making, so I don't know why you raise them in response. Now, you may say the above examples are far fetched and quite distant from scenarios in which the freedom of the reader is *unfairly* constrained, and you are likely to be right (except maybe points a. and b.). In each of your examples, either the action is restricted by copyright law and those restrictions should be considered for software freedom; or they don't and the action is neutral for this consideration. The copyright holders in a work have, under the law, unilateral and superior power to any recipient. What matters for software freedom is whether that power is used to unjustly restrict, through choice of license terms, the freedom of any recipient of the work. If the choice of license terms restricts freedoms based on how the work is to be interpreted, I'm arguing that is an unjust use of the power of the copyright holder. -- \ “Software patents provide one more means of controlling access | `\ to information. They are the tool of choice for the internet | _o__) highwayman.” —Anthony Taylor | Ben Finney ___ Free-software-melb mailing list Free-software-melb@lists.softwarefreedom.com.au http://lists.softwarefreedom.com.au/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/free-software-melb Free Software Melbourne home page: http://www.freesoftware.asn.au/melb/
Re: [free-software-melb] GNU FDL and software freedom
On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 09:42:56AM +1000, Ben Finney wrote: Adrian Colomitchi acolomit...@gmail.com writes: But any other works derived from the said documentation that are used *for other purposes* won't be restricted by copyright law, no matter the license under which the original documentation is published. That seems flatly false. Copyright applies (or does not apply) to a work regardless of the purpose the recipient has for it. If you receive a work under the FDL, it applies whether you want to use it as documentation or music or a program or whatever. No it's not - or at least it certainly isn't always the case. http://hardware.slashdot.org/story/13/07/23/0115242/copyright-drama-reaches-3d-printing-world Reading through the discussion there, the general consensus seems to be that the copyright of 3D designs do not extend to the use of 3D-printed objects. Thinking about it logically, it would be quite silly if it were true. Imagine the problems it would impose - may not be able to use my own mug to drink from because I don't comply with the license of the design, etc. I'm sure there would be other examples outside of 3D printing where the original copyright would not apply to works outside of the original scope. signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ Free-software-melb mailing list Free-software-melb@lists.softwarefreedom.com.au http://lists.softwarefreedom.com.au/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/free-software-melb Free Software Melbourne home page: http://www.freesoftware.asn.au/melb/
Re: [free-software-melb] GNU FDL and software freedom
On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 09:12:56AM +1000, Brian May wrote: On 24 July 2013 08:43, Adrian Colomitchi acolomit...@gmail.com wrote: If I change an open source program, chances are the original documentation no longer applies any more. So I really should be updating the documentation too. If however there are barriers to updating the documentation, e.g. for some misconceived reason the copyright owner decided to make that part invariant, then I won't update it. As discussed previously, the FDL's optional invariant sections do not apply to the actual documentation. Your examples regarding this problem don't apply. Another common example given on the Debian mailing lists is if I want to produce a condensed version of the documentation, e.g. one that will fit on a single A5 sheet of paper for example. It may not be possible if I have to include invariant sections. That's the more practical edge case that Ben (and yourself I suppose) is objecting to, however even that extreme example is unlikely to be a problem. People licensing work under the FDL are not likely thinking about restricting the end user. This is clearly not the intent of the license. I'm sure simply writing to the author requesting permission for that specific use case would likely suffice. There might be reasons why that wouldn't work, but it shouldn't be much of a problem in the realm of IT, where programs are typically outdated and replaced quite fast - the copyright holders are likely to still be contactable, as opposed to copyright holders of a work of fiction or some such where the author could have died some time ago. As has been pointed out, these are exceptional edge cases that are very likely solvable one way or another should they ever actually occur. signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ Free-software-melb mailing list Free-software-melb@lists.softwarefreedom.com.au http://lists.softwarefreedom.com.au/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/free-software-melb Free Software Melbourne home page: http://www.freesoftware.asn.au/melb/
