[Sussex] GFDL

[Steve Dobson]

Morning Geoff

On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 11:05:33PM +0100, Geoffrey J Teale wrote:
> Steve Dobson <steve at dobson.org> writes:
> >                                          ...  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.  

I agree that the mechanism isn't explicitly for "Political" use, but it
*can* be used for such things.  I'm playing mind games, running "what if"
scenarios.  This is the way I evaluate something, I try and find the ways
a system can be abused.  This is how I see the GFDL being abused.
 
> One more time.  You don't have to have the documentation, but if you
> want it these are the terms.

Come on.  This is a stupid argument.  If I can't take the documentation
then I cripple the usability of the software.  

>                               Every document licensed this way should
> be evaluated and if you accept the content so be it.  

Of course.

> 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.  

I am not accusing the FSF of distributing harmful material.  If that is
the impression that I have given then I beg forgiveness.

But I am accusing the FSF of providing a mechanism that allows for the
distribution of harmful material.  And I see that you agree with me that
invariant sections *could* be use in that way.
 
> 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 organization as described below.

FSF's goals are clear to me, and you're right, I have no problem with
their view.  I hope you remember that I *am* a supporter of Free Software
more than Open Source Software.
 
> > 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 include it they are forced to include the invariant content
> (if any exists).
> 
> Again I'll draw the comparison to the GPL.  No one 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.

If someone takes a GFDL licensed document and insert changes that we all
want but also inserts an invariant section that promotes racial violence,
then (s)he takes away UK residents rights to share and change said
additions to the documentation.  Under the FSF's own manifesto the
GFDL does NOT "guarantee your freedom to share and change free"
documentation.  It is therefore NOT a free documentation license.

Earlier in this thread you stated the FSF had consulted with expert
lawyers and the GFDL was the best compromise for providing free
documentation that was compatible with commercial publications.  I
disagree.

Lawrence Lessig is a lawyer of some renown in the "Free" movement.
He has come up with a set of licenses for non-software copyrightable
material.  And his licenses, even the ones that allow commercial use,
do not come with the burden of "invariant sections".  So, Geoff, your
statement (earlier in this thread) that the current form of the GFDL
is necessary to permit commercial re-use is obviously false.

Steve