[Sussex] Distros

[Geoffrey J Teale]

Steve Dobson <steve at dobson.org> writes:

> Can I be clear on this?  You are now suggesting that we duplicate effort
> to manufacture documentation while the source code can just be copy and
> augment.  Does anyone else see this oxymoronic?

It is a problem, but it's not one with as easier answer as you all seem
to think.  As I've said, the FSF would take the stance that whist
improvements are always desirable the few issues caused by the GFDL
are worth the advantages.  

> I would assume that any re-writer would also not to have had read the
> original documentation.  If the original author was to sue under copyright 
> infringement then the re-writer would have to prove that any similarities
> between the two documents was coincidence and not plagiarism.

No, not at all.  So long as they did not use the prose of the original
document or make any claim of being the same document written by the
same author they would have no problem.  If you write a factual,
technical manual based on code that is freely available what ground is
there for desribing something as a derived work when it is not.  If I
write a book about C does that automatically give Kerningham and
Richie the right to sue me?  Obviously it does not.

> These kinds of tricks were used at the start of the PC clone development.
> Are we to return to practices of twenty years ago?  Have we learnt nothing
> in that time?

I think we have learned an awful lot, which is why the GFDL exists at all.

> And how were these lawyers consulted?  Where they asked to find a license
> that is similar to the GPL but for documentation?  Or where they asked to
> provide a method that would allow RMS to insert his politically views into
> technical documentation and not have it removed?

Well, I wasn't privvy to the conversations with the lawyers, so I'll
leave you to make your own mind up on that one.

The "political" aspect is there but only if the author wants
it.  Equally an author can choose to use any other license.  The Free
Software Foundation may choose to license it's software under the
terms of the GFDL and in doing so it wishes that the views of the Free
Software Foundation as an entity are always conveyed with that
documentation.  How exactly is this different from the requirement
that GPL'd source code must always contain an invariant GPL license
and that no other license can be applied to any changes in it?  

Sure anyone, no matter their beliefs of affiliations can use, modify
and redistribute GPL code, but they cannot change the license, remove
it of ignore it.  The license is the very same "political" message
encoded in legalese.  Do you take issue with that as well?

Yes I see there are practical problems for people wishing to maintain
the text, but these are no different from a typo in the GPL.

I repeat, Debian fundementally accepts the GPL, the GFDL deals with a
much more complex use case, human language, and as such there are more
practical problems, but the logic is pretty much the same as the GPL.
Think of it like this:  The invariant sections, cover sheet etc, are
the legal content (much like the COPYING and AUTHORS files in a source
bundle), the technical content represents the code.  Just like a GPL'd
source package you can't change the legal content, its application,
spirit or meaning but you are free to modify the code in anyway you
see fit so long as you comply with the license.  

> Geoff, you have said publicly, in this forum, that you support Free Software
> because it does not exclude developing nations from gaining IT expertise.
> I completely agree with you on this point.

Good.

> Some of those developing nations have laws that forbid the freedom of speech 
> that RMS, you and I practice.  Let's consider that RMS has insert a political
> rant as an invariant section in the FSF documentation, and that said rant is
> illegal in a number developing countries.  How do we (as a community that
> believe in free software, sharing with the developing world and the legal
> process) deliver the documentation for software to all nations?  

To my knowledge no nation on earth specifcally outlaws the view of the
Free Software Foundation.  If any nation did take a stance against
Free Software I imagine the problems we faced would be greater than
just getting the documentation to people.  Incidentally, IMHO the
countries that are most likely to face a lobby to outlaw free software
are the western nations.

 The FSF will not put anything more radical than the GNU manifesto in
it's software manuals.  What other people do is their own business.
We aren't talking about undermiming regeims or spreading communism,
facism or anything of that nature.

Explicity the GFDL doesn't restrict any important freedoms to
maintain, translate or improve the technical content, it only requires
that the license and a few important pieces of information are always
reproduced.  I agree that it would be better if this didn't have to be
the case, but there are good reasons for it and thats that.

> Can someone
> only have the documentation if they take RMS's political ideology too?
> That isn't all that different, to me at least, from offering aid with
> conditions on where such aid is spent.

It's not a question of RMS's personal ideology - his views extend well
beyond the GPL and GFDL (see http://www.stallman.org for all manor of
political views).  The "political" content you mention is the spirit
of the license under which the software is issued.  It is expressed in
a non-legalese form, nothing more nothing less.  If you don't like it
then you have the option to use FreeBSD or something else.  Nobody is
forcing anyone to do anything, but if you use Free Software the price
you pay is passing on that freedom explicitly.  Microsoft call this
viral, you may or may not agree.  Whatever you think its worth noting
that this mechanism supports and defends the majority of software
running on our machines.

-- 
Geoff Teale
Free Software Foundation