[Sussex] Distros

[Geoffrey J. Teale]

Paul Tansom <paul at aptanet.com> writes:
> 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:

Good, thinking about it is an important step :-)

> 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.

Yes, to an extent.  

The difference is that debian make compromises in software freedom for
reasons of convenience, the FSF make compromises with documentation
freedom because the law demands it for certain uses. 

There are definitely practical issues with the GFDL, but almost all of
them can be solved by dual licensing some parts of the content.  This
is a real requirement when source code appears in the documentation,
but generally the FSF is anti to this on the whole because it doesn't
defend the document from miss use.

I absolutely support the Debian communities right to query this stuff,
it's important that they do so.  The reality is that it's less easy to
achieve what the FSF wants to achieve with documentation without
incurring these problems.

> 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.

You can't lift part of a GFDL document without including the
restricted sections.  This is the issue.

>>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.

Not as such.  The intent is to allow publisher (and authors) to print documentation
that is also freely available in other mediums without fear of
misrepresentation.  This is a much more serious issue with natural
language than with computer code.

There are requirements imposed by bodies (such as some standards bodies)
that require documentation to have a very fixed form.  If a document
is derived from a standard but modified it is necessary for text to be
included stating categorically where the canonical version can be
found and that any variant of it is not considered to be a
representation of the standard.  This is a much more important issue
than it sounds.  In order for free software to be used in many
industries it requires documentation that complies with these rules.
Debian's rules are fundamentally incapable of providing documentation
that complies with these terms.


> 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 ;)

Yes, you can make a case for this.  However both the GPL and GFDL are
compromises of idealism and practicality.  Both licenses have to work
within the bounds of the law and maximise their usefulness.
Documentation has different forces upon it, and the GFDL reflects
that.

Many people in the BSD community feel that the GPL is just as
compromised as the GFDL.  Opinions differ, but the GPL definitely
protects some freedoms by restricting others, just as the GFDL does.

My stance is simply that most people involved with software understand
software and the value that the GPL provides.  Those same people often
don't really understand the requirement free documentation needs to
fulfil and they tend to require more of the GFDL than it is possible
to provide.

-- 
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/