[Sussex] Distros

[Geoffrey J Teale]

Paul Tansom <paul at aptanet.com> writes:

> On Mon, 2005-04-04 at 18:16 +0100, Geoffrey J. Teale wrote:
>> Paul Tansom <paul at aptanet.com> writes:>
>
> Well, no, from my reading of this thread, which is my only real
> interaction with any information on the GFDL so far, I have come to the
> same conclusion. If a GPL project creates documentation and wants this
> documentation to be available to anyone who creates a derivative work
> then the GFDL is not an option. If said hypothetical project wishes to
> restrict the ability of any derivative work to quickly produce
> documentation by forcing them to do it from scratch then the GFDL looks
> good.

The GFDL would only force you to do it from scratch if it contained an
invariant section that you did not want to pass on.  The reality I
have been pointnig out is that the FSF's documentation released under
the GFDL only contains invariant material that pertains to letter and
spirit of the license under which the software is licensed anyway.
Objecting to this material seems a little odd under the circumstances.

I agree that it may be less than ideal, but ensuring that people not
only use free software but _know_ that they are using free software
and what that really means is an essential goal of the free software
foundation and not one that is going to be abandoned.

> To my mind the GFDL is a good license for publishers to release books
> related to free software projects with a view that they will be or may
> be made available electronically. It is friendly enough to be accepted
> by the community for such a purpose. For documentation directly
> distributed with free software projects in electronic format primarily
> (although with the possibility of printing if desired) then I would
> suggest a different license is more suited. If there are situations
> relating to commercial use of documentation (as you have indicated) that
> require specific formats, protections, or etc. then I would suggest that
> projects looking at supporting this produce specific documentation - or
> alternatively there is a documentation project that produces this for
> multiple free software projects.

This places the duplication of effort upon the producers of the
software who would have no problem with the license in first place
(else they wouldn't have used it). 

> Note that I am not defining the license as a bad one, just commenting on
> my interpretation of where it is suitable for use and where not. Clearly
> the FSF and Debian views on what constitutes free software differ
> somewhat. The FSF are free to publish their documentation however the
> like, as is anyone. Likewise Debian is free to consider that
> documentation is no longer "free" according to their definition and will
> therefore have to and move it to non-free (or other suitable action to
> try to make it available). Clearly it is an issue where the two will
> have to agree to differ, but given that it will cause an amount of work
> and/or embarrassment to one or both parties means it is a contentious
> issue!

Unfortunately these tensions will always arise.  The FSF see Debian as
not Free enough to recommend and Debian see the GFDL as not free
enough to include.  All of this simply reflects the different goals of
the two organisations.  Debian is a notebly good example of free
software distribution, it's a shame that it can't go the final few
steps but it's still streets ahead of many other mainstream distros in
this regard.

> Personally I see the GFDL as an olive branch to the commercial world
> (primarily publishing) to allow them to work with us, not something that
> is of direct use internally. Of course that is my current view and I
> don't say that it will always be so - I reserve my right to change my
> mind with new evidence or re-evaluating existing evidence :)

As you should do. It's less of an olive branch and more of a
compromise to make it possible to deal with these situations with
undermining the greater goal of software freedom.  Debian have a more
idealistic stance with regard to the principle of freedom in
documentation, perhaps.

--
Geoff Teale
Free Software Foundation