[Sussex] Distros

[Steve Dobson]

Paul

On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 05:15:29PM +0100, Paul Tansom wrote:
> o the Debian distribution is not considered to be truly free as per the
> FSF guidelines, possibly due to the fact that it makes some (not a lot I
> don't think) concession to the practicalities of the real/commercial
> world (not entirely sure I should have added commercial there, but there
> you go!).

At one time RMS & FSF indorsed Debian as being "free".  However, Debian
has a "non-free" section which contain useful packages which, while can
be used at no cost, are not free of all restrictions, like patents or
"not for commercial use".  It was this area that RMS objected to and 
why the FSF withdraw there endorsed, although IIRC at the time they
still said that it was the "most free" of any Linux distro while not
being completely free.

If you install Debian with out using any packages from "non-free" you
are garenteed a FSF "free" OS.
 
> o the GFDL is restricting some elements of freedom to ensure that it is
> practical for commercial publication of documentation and to ensure that
> the FSF 'message' is kept within the documentation - this to ensure that
> it is compatible with the real world and not simply matching an ideal.
> 
> Is not the GFDL doing for documentation exactly what the Debian free
> software guidelines are doing for software? - as in making it practical
> for use in the real world where people have to earn a living by some
> means.

No.  The GFDL requires that to take the documentation you *must* take
all the invariant sections without change.  The GPL allows you to take
software and remove anything from it (say software that is covered by
a software patent), and to release the derived work where the original
can not be legally used because of local patent laws.  
 
> On the subject of the GFDL, I assume that with this license it is not
> acceptable to lift one or part of the non-invariant sections to use
> within other documentation - if it is then the whole aspect of invariant
> sections becomes irrelevant.

Correct.

> Gut feel at the moment from this discussion so far (and please do bear
> in mind that I am not in a fully formed opinion mode yet and feel that
> I've not read enough to be at that point yet!) is that the GFDL is at
> odds with the general stance of the FSF.  The FSF comes across as being
> very purist on its views and not necessarily yet fully practical (more
> of a long term goal than quite there yet, but heading in an admirable
> direction). The GFDL on the other hand appears to be back tracking on
> the idealism in order to fit with the real/commercial world - not
> something I tend to associate the FSF with ;)

I would agree with that.  The FSF want purity of software but not of the
documentation that does along with it.  "You can have our software and do
anything you like with it so long as you give it back.  But you can't
have the documentation for it unless we can ram our political views on
you too.

Steve