[Sussex] Distros

[Paul Tansom]

On Mon, 2005-04-04 at 17:38 +0100, Steve Dobson wrote:
> 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.

So a Debian CD without the non-Free sections would be a FSF "free"
distribution, although with the technical ability to pull non-free
packages into it if required - interesting grey area in terms of
attempts to fit into the real world and make it easy to work with
non-free software!

> > 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.

That would seem to imply that the GFDL is not suitable for documenting
GPL source code, since you are unable to quote the source code within
the documentation in order to explain its workings. This is more a
license for documenting usage of applications. (With the obvious proviso
that if the original authors are happy with the dual license you could
use it).

> > 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.

Politics and software are not comfortable bedfellows - well, anything
and politics are not comfortable bedfellows - well, anything and
politics and the law are not comfortable bedfellows - well... oh dear I
feel a Monty Python parody building, I had better stop there ;)

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