[Sussex] GFDL

[Geoffrey J Teale]

Steve Dobson <steve at dobson.org> writes:

> Geoff
>
> I see these points, and can broadly agree with them.

OK.

> But you have not justified me here why I need to accept invariant sections
> that contain political essays.  The only two O'Reilly books I have that
> have a political slant to them are "Cracking DES" and "Open Sources".
> The others on DNS, MySQL, Emacs, ... do not.  I can see the need for
> invariant section where they are needed for legal protection or creditation.
> I can also see that some media have different needs and requirements as a
> result of the technology used by that media.  But I still do not see the
> need for political rants as having to be invariant.

Political rants?  The mechanism is not explicitly for "Politics" but
to support the need to have unmodifiable statements.  This isn't ideal
in a movement that desires freedom but it is a reality of
communicating natural language with legally binding content.  

One more time.  You don't have to have the documentation, but if you
want it these are the terms.  Every document licensed this way should
be evaluated and if you accept the content so be it.  

I wouldn't suggest that Debian automatically distributes anything
published under the GFDL, but I see very little reason for anyone to
accuse the FSF of distributing harmful material.  

The goals of the FSF are clear to everyone, that you expect us to not
expect them to be communicated with the software we publish is frankly
contrary, specifically since you don't object to a far more explicit
statement of the politics of the organisation as described below.

> So I ask you, Geoff, directly:  Why do I need to accept an invariant that
> are of a political nature?

I utterly agree that there are problems and that the system is open to
abuse by other people who might right invariant sections that contain
offensive material.  

On the other hand suggesting that the FSF is
somehow forcing propaganda down peoples throats by simply restating
the ideals embodied in the license they _have_ to accept in order to
use GNU software is frankly ridiculous.

The simple truth is no one is forced to include the documentation, but
if they do incude it they are forced to include the invariant content
(if any exists).

Again I'll draw the comparison to the GPL.  Noone is forced to use GPL
software , but if they do use it they have to comply with it's terms
which means they are forced to accept a copy of the GPL.  I remind you
that the reamble of the GPL (which users of GPL _must_ have access to
under its terms) contain more explicit politics than the Manifesto
itself, and I quote:

======================================================================
The licenses for most software are designed to take away your freedom
to share and change it. By contrast, the GNU General Public License is
intended to guarantee your freedom to share and change free
software--to make sure the software is free for all its users. This
General Public License applies to most of the Free Software
Foundation's software and to any other program whose authors commit to
using it. (Some other Free Software Foundation software is covered by
the GNU Library General Public License instead.) You can apply it to
your programs, too.

When we speak of free software, we are referring to freedom, not
price. Our General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that you
have the freedom to distribute copies of free software (and charge for
this service if you wish), that you receive source code or can get it
if you want it, that you can change the software or use pieces of it
in new free programs; and that you know you can do these things.

To protect your rights, we need to make restrictions that forbid
anyone to deny you these rights or to ask you to surrender the
rights. These restrictions translate to certain responsibilities for
you if you distribute copies of the software, or if you modify it.

For example, if you distribute copies of such a program, whether
gratis or for a fee, you must give the recipients all the rights that
you have. You must make sure that they, too, receive or can get the
source code. And you must show them these terms so they know their
rights.

We protect your rights with two steps: (1) copyright the software, and
(2) offer you this license which gives you legal permission to copy,
distribute and/or modify the software.

Also, for each author's protection and ours, we want to make certain
that everyone understands that there is no warranty for this free
software. If the software is modified by someone else and passed on,
we want its recipients to know that what they have is not the
original, so that any problems introduced by others will not reflect
on the original authors' reputations.

Finally, any free program is threatened constantly by software
patents. We wish to avoid the danger that redistributors of a free
program will individually obtain patent licenses, in effect making the
program proprietary. To prevent this, we have made it clear that any
patent must be licensed for everyone's free use or not licensed at
all.

The precise terms and conditions for copying, distribution and
modification follow.
========================================================================


BTW.  I have the O'Reilly title "Learning GNU Emacs" here.  It
contains a discussion of the GPL, the complete text of the GPL, a
discussion on the GNU Manifesto and the League for Programming
Freedom.  The manifesto is as I have said repeatedly nothing more than
the embodyment of the intent of the GPL in the context of the GNU
project.  The fact that it _may_ be expressly marked as invariant in a
document describing software licensed under these terms is not really
adding anything more than an easier to understand version of the
message encoded in the GPL itself (which you are not allowed to remove
from the code to which it applies). 

-- 
Geoff Teale
Free Software Foundation