[Sussex] Distros

[Paul Tansom]

On Mon, 2005-04-04 at 16:32 +0100, Geoffrey J. Teale wrote:
> 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:
<snip>
> 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"."
> ======================================================================
<snip>

I've not read up too much on these, but having followed the threads so
far I'm a bit curious on a few things:

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!).

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.

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. If not then you are restricting the use of
good (well, hopefully good) documentation in other related documents
because the invariant sections (which seem to include "covers, title
page, history, and endorsements") become irrelevant to the new (or
significantly rewritten) document.

>From the assumptions in the above paragraph am I correct in assuming
that the GFDL is primarily aimed at allowing commercially published
documentation to be kept up to date after the publisher has abandoned
it?... hence not suitable for allowing parts to be used in related
documentation? i.e. several miles away from the intent/spirit of the
GPL.

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 ;)

-- 
Paul Tansom | Aptanet Ltd. | http://www.aptanet.com/