Simon Huggins <huggie at earth.li> writes:
> Salut LUG!
> Right and I can concede that some of this is good for dead-tree and that
> for real books it's a lot better than just all rights reserved etc.
>
>> In reality the FSF wants to have licenses that are legally strong and
>> ensure important freedoms rather than all freedoms. As I've stated
>> the GPL also restricts some freedoms because those freedoms are
>> damaging to freedom itself and to the greater good. Debian doesn't
>> have a problem with the GPL because it understands software better
>> than it understands publishing.
>
> Debian's problems stem from the FSF's use of the GFDL in *all*
> documentation. Electronic and not.
You cannot distinguish. If you publish the documentation
electronically under freer terms then you have lost all the protection
you put on the paper version! There is nothing to stop me printing
GPL'd documentation with any modifications I like so long as I make it
available electronically (as source) this is a real issue for
publishers, standards bodies, etc.
This is the crux of the problem.
> That's the bit you're ignoring very effectively in my posts ;)
Not at all, see above. I'm not trying to make a one-sided argument!
> Oh sure, and Debian is going to move piles of documentation to non-free,
> get upstream to relicense it or get volunteers to rewrite it because we
> can no longer distribute it and our efforts to get the FSF to understand
> the problems with the license have fallen on deaf ears.
Or.. simply accept the reality and allow GFDL as part of the DFSG.
> You're ignoring again the fact that I'm referring to documentation as
> part of software. You've neatly snipped that bit where I said:
> The problem is that it's being foisted upon us for real
> documentation not just dead-tree stuff. Documentation for
> things like emacs, autotools and so on uses this license.
>
> Have you thought about becoming a spin doctor?
Not at all. C'mon, I'm not trying to be an arse, I'm pointing out
there are real legal reasons why you cannot simply ignore copyright
law and act as if making that documentation available electronically
under a less restrictive license somehow magically solves the
problem. It doesn't. Dual licensing portions of the text can help a
lot, but once you've abandoned the restrictions in one place there are
effectively gone elsewhere. There may well be a way of adding
explicit conditions to allow different rights on electronic usage but
neither publishers of standards bodies would be satisfied with that so
what are you going to do?
> Well ok, http://cvsbook.red-bean.com/ was GPL'd (see also
> http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0954161718/202-3227084-7002231)
>
> http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/tg/stores/detail/-/books/0954161734/reviews/202-4320321-5467047 is GPL'd.
>
> *shrug*
>
> It can and has been done with real dead-tree by real publishers sold by
> real book stores.
Yes. Can't argue with that, I own a copy of that book. There are
issues and risks that were accepted in the publication of that book
that I shall discuss below.
> But seriously, I'd prefer to hear why electronic online documentation
> can't be GPL'd. That's much closer to software, the preferred form of
> modification (its source code) is easy to get and process with free
> tools so I don't see the problem. Why do you need the GFDL here?
>
Well, I've covered it several times over, but it comes down to this:
* Standard bodies and government agencies require legal protection
from misrepresentation of standard documentation.
* Publishers require that credits are maintained.
* Publishers require that where modification is made to what they
published that this modification is obvious and can in no way
result in legal action against them.
* The GPL requires that source code is made available and the
definition of "source code" for a book is a very loose legal term
that really doesn't benefit anyone. The GFDL stipulates instead
that any modification that is reproduced above a certain level
must be provided with an electronically editable version. This
is a serious concern, a GPL'd book on your desk causes problem.
If you make margin notes in it and then pass it on to someone
else you are required to make you margin notes available in an
editable form - pretty stupid IMHO.
Now, outside of some specific areas the GPL is fine for most
documentation, especially if it's not intended for paper publication,
but the GFDL allows that documentation and the software it supports
into places it couldn't go before. Nobody at the FSF made up the GFDL
to be a pain in the backside and while RMS can be pretty stroppy
sometimes he is not trying to piss people off. The FSF is trying to
address genuine issues within the law, and the Debian project is not a
major concern to the FSF. That may again be a question of the FSF
letting it's own ideals override reality but it is still the decision
of each author which license they use (the FSF do not insist that the
GFDL is used, apart from anything else the have no power with which to
enforce it) so if Debian people have an issue they should take it up
with each author.
--
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/