[Sussex] Distros

[Geoffrey J Teale]

Paul Tansom <paul at aptanet.com> writes:

> Unless I am reading the GFDL incorrectly, I disagree - well, the
> situation I had in mind doesn't fit with that anyway:

OK

> Take project A which is GPL with GFDL documentation. Some of the
> users/project members see a variation in the project that is not agreed
> on in general. The power of the GPL allows them to take the project and
> add/remove the parts as necessary to create the variation. Being pro the
> concepts and spirit of the GPL (and adhering to it) they make their new
> project and source available. Unfortunately, although say 60-80% of the
> documentation would be reusable, and they would include suitable
> acknowledgement of the original authors, etc., they cannot use project
> A's documentation to create their own. The cover cannot be changed, so
> it would reference the wrong project, the main body of the document
> cannot be reused because it is not possible to pick the relevant chunks
> out, only expand or correct them within the confines of being a revision
> of the same document - which this is not, it is documentation for the
> new project, not project A. The new project now falls foul of the big
> criticism of free software projects - poor or no documentation.

Hmm, yes, to an extent what you are saying is true, although it is
also something that is definitively _not_ the spirit of the GPL.  The
GPL doesn't intend for people to take someone elses work, change it's
name and then redistribute it as being an entirely new work.  The
limitation on changes to the cover text (which can be changed to some
extent) and details of authorship are simply forcing people to "play
fair".

The case where they "cannot use" the documentation falls into two
categories:

  1. Where someone has added an invariant section that they disagree
     with (by implication this should not happen with the FSF's docs).

  2. Where the new project is unwilling to give credit to the original
     authors of both the code and the documentation (which is frankly
     contrary to the spririt of free software).

I'll freely admit that bodies other the FSF might cause problems under
case 1.

> If you are saying that the entirety of the document can be rewritten or
> reused so long as the cover and other invariant sections remain in place
> then so long as the new project is happy with the FSF invariant section
> (which for the sake of argument we are) then so long as the new projects
> documentation claims to be for project A on the cover (i.e. using the
> same cover) and adds an addendum page within that states that the cover
> is wrong, but required by project A's documentation to be left in place
> because they are basing their documentation, where common, on the
> original document, all will be well - if looking a little silly!

I'll say again, the cover isn't totally invariant.

The GFDL define the cover text as:
==========================================================================
The "Cover Texts" are certain short passages of text that are listed,
as Front-Cover Texts or Back-Cover Texts, in the notice that says that
the Document is released under this License. A Front-Cover Text may be
at most 5 words, and a Back-Cover Text may be at most 25 words.
==========================================================================

And later..:

==========================================================================
If you publish printed copies (or copies in media that commonly have
printed covers) of the Document, numbering more than 100, and the
Document's license notice requires Cover Texts, you must enclose the
copies in covers that carry, clearly and legibly, all these Cover
Texts: Front-Cover Texts on the front cover, and Back-Cover Texts on
the back cover. Both covers must also clearly and legibly identify you
as the publisher of these copies. The front cover must present the
full title with all words of the title equally prominent and
visible. You may add other material on the covers in addition. Copying
with changes limited to the covers, as long as they preserve the title
of the Document and satisfy these conditions, can be treated as
verbatim copying in other respects.
==========================================================================

Yes this means you cannot pass the document off as being something
other than a variant of the original document, but you can make quite
significant changed to the cover to indicate it is a variant belonging
to the new project.  

> I'm more stating an opinion on its use and where I would personally see
> it suitable for use than insisting that everyone does it this particular
> way. The choice, as you say, is with the producers of the software -
> they are free to choose proprietary documentation if they want :)

Indeed.

> My reading is that they are looking to ensure their distribution (i.e.
> CDs, etc.) does not have extra restrictions imposed on it by virtue of
> less freedom being placed on the documentation required to use the
> software than the software itself. If you included proprietary
> documentation on the CD then this would suddenly limit some of what you
> can do with the Debian distribution.

I feel describing the GFDL documentation as propietary is a little
extreme, but I can see the point entirely.

> Don't get me wrong here, I am partly playing devils advocate (I am prone
> to it!). I am seriously considering becoming an FSFE Fellow when funds
> allow - one of the ways I can put back what I get out of free
> software.

Good stuff.

> I am one of those scrimping and saving and trying to eek out a living
> from free software. Unfortunately that isn't easy unless you happen to
> be employed by one of the big organisations and way too much of my work
> is proprietary software driven. Arguably I could make more money by
> churning out proprietary solutions. There would certainly be less
> scrutiny and it may be easier to get the go ahead in many cases, in
> spite of higher costs. In the end I believe customers are more satisfied
> with the results - although pressure from vendors of proprietary
> software that has to interact is getting tough to work with sometimes!

Keep up the good work.  If anything the restriction the FSF have built
in to the GFDL are there to promote freedom in a way that should
ultimately benefit people like you.  I hope that will be my last word
on the subject.

-- 
Geoff Teale
Free Software Foundation