[Sussex] Distros

[Geoffrey J. Teale]

Steve Dobson <steve at dobson.org> writes:
---%<-----
> 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".


I'm inclined to agree with this as it is the intent of Free Software.
However, the legal status of published paper-based documentation
requires a different set of license requirements.  

While it seems hypocritical of the FSF to have specifically limited
sections as part of the GFDL there are major differences in intent for
the use of documentation than cannot be side-stepped in certain
applications.  More often than not peoples objection to GFDL is really
based in them not having an understanding of law in the real world.
Requiring documentation to have the same freedoms as software is both
legally naive and a practical impossibility in the real world.  Bear
in mind that the GFDL is considered to be a far more legally sound
license than the GPL is (the GPL is being rewritten as we speak) and
has allowed for printed documentation to be made available freely in
electronic for in a manner never before achieved.

The license has to exist and work in the real world that means we need
to be able to comply with various bodies that have standards for
documentation.  I quote from the FSF website:

====================================================================
"The special rules for Endorsements sections make it possible to use
the GFDL for an official standard. This would permit modified
versions, but they could not be labeled as "the standard"."
====================================================================

The GFDL is the only free documentation license that supports this
usage.  There are other examples concerning publishing laws in the US
and EU that mean that no private publisher could risk printing
documentation under the GPL for instance (the GPL is actually
fundamentally unsuitable for printed media).

Reiterating what you put in your P.S.:

"Using the GFDL, we permit changes in the text of a manual that covers
its technical topic. It is important to be able to change the
technical parts, because people who change a program ought to change
the documentation to correspond. The freedom to do this is an ethical
imperative.

The one really problematic part is the invariant sections.  I'll
freely admit the intent for these is based on the FSF being burned by
the political message being changed by groups who feel differently.
I'm not entirely comfortable with this, but in essence it is the same
as the difference between the GPL and BSD licenses - Free Software is
self propagating, Free Documentation is designed to be the same.  The
FSF state:

======================================================================
Our manuals also include sections that state our political position
about free software. We mark these as "invariant", so that they cannot
be changed or removed. The GFDL makes provisions for these "invariant
sections"."
======================================================================

... a key point is that the license doesn't in it's current form allow
"anything" to appear in an invariant section the rules are:

=====================================================================
But that feature requires a safeguard to prevent it from being abused
to endanger the free status of the manual. Person B who modifies a
manual that was written by person A should not be able to make any of
person A's documentation invariant, for that would deny person C the
permission to modify it further. Likewise, if person B adds
documentation for additional subtopics, this added documentation must
not be invariant; the documentation itself must be modifiable by
others. The FDL's conditions on adding invariant sections provide this
safeguard.
======================================================================

Additionally you are required to state which sections are invariant up
front.  In this manner it would be easy to filter out manuals with
dodgy sections up front.   Adding invariant information on unrelated
topics is disallowed,  so you can be sure that if the document didn't
contain offensive material when it was authored then none can be added
in a manner that they cannot be removed.

-- 
Geoff Teale
CMed Technology            -   gteale at cmedresearch.com
Free Software Foundation   -   tealeg at member.fsf.org

/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/