[Sussex] Distros

[Steve Dobson]

Geoff

On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 02:12:50PM +0100, Geoffrey J. Teale wrote:
> Simon Huggins <huggie at earth.li> writes:
> 
> > Shame they made a mistake with the GFDL really with Invariant sections
> > and other problems.
> >
> > http://people.debian.org/~srivasta/Position_Statement.html [0]
> >
> 
> Hmm, seems to be a dead link.  Anyhow there are many criticisms of the
> GFDL, however it is a really comes down to people not understanding the
> difference between software and documentation.  In particular paper
> based documentation has different legal requirements and practical
> considerations to electronic media.  RMS states:
> 
> ==================================================================
> Can technical writers earn money by writing free documentation for
> free software? We seriously hope so, and that is the reason for the
> GNU Free Documentation License.
> 
> The GFDL is meant as a way to enlist commercial publishers in funding
> free documentation without surrendering any vital liberty. The "cover
> text" feature, and certain other aspects of the license that deal with
> covers, title page, history, and endorsements, are included to make
> the license appealing to commercial publishers for books whose authors
> are paid. To improve the appeal, I consulted specifically with staff
> of publishing companies, as well as lawyers, free documentation
> writers, and the community at large, in writing the GFDL.
> 
> At least two commercial publishers of software manuals have told me
> they are interested in using this license. The future is never a sure
> thing, but the GFDL looks like it has a good chance to succeed in
> shaping a social system where commercial publishers pay people to
> write commercial free manuals for free software.
> ====================================================================
> 
> The community as a whole is seeing the benefit of this license in
> terms of published books already.  Moreover if you don't want to use
> the GFDL you don't have to, it's perfectly acceptable to GPL your
> documentation (and indeed is preferable for electronic media).

The problem with the invariant sections in the GFDL is that they are 
free form, anything can go in them.  An author could insert a text
into an invariant section that would be illegal to publish or distribute
in some countries.

Debian has stated (in the DFSG) what it means by "free".  That definition
requires that no restriction is placed on who can use Debian software or
how they use it, or where they can use it.  If your business is using only
software form the main Debian packages then that software is "free" to use.
The packages in the "non-free" archives may include restrictions like "not
for commercial use".

If RMS had agreed to restrict the invariant sections to just covers, title
pages, history and author credits then I believe that Debian would have
accepted it as a "free" license.  However, RMS was *not* prepared to limit
the invariant sections in this way?  Why not? I ask.  What has he got
planned for them?

RMS's views on Open Source are well published.  I can see that RMS in the
future may well insert an invariant section rant on why "Free Software" is
better then "Open Source Software", and I will probably agree with that.

But I can also see that some other author may insert a section in why
slavery is good, or to promote racism, paedophilia or <pick something you
morally object too>.  And while I support the authors right to hold such
view, and even to speak about them, I *do not* support the requirement
that a publisher (in this case Debian) must reproduce those views if they
don't want to.  What place does a paedophilia rant (fore or against) have
in the GNU Emacs Technical Specification?

Steve

P.S. Please note that the technical content of a GFDL is not covered by
the invariant section clause, and you a free to change that in any way
that you want.