[Sussex] GFDL

[Geoffrey J. Teale]

Steve Dobson <steve at dobson.org> writes:

> Morning Geoff

Morning...

> 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.

I agree with that in it's entirety.  This is a legal problem, how do
we make a license that is acceptable in all scenarios without creating
these kinds of issues.  The fact that nobody has to distribute this
documentation is the only defence, and the idea is that as the
original author of a document you don't include these things if you
want the document to be distributed.  It's like not distributing
software with major design flaws.

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

But the argument you are making is that a distro should blanket refuse
the documentation rather than looking at the individual case, if there
is nothing offensive in a document that would need to be changed why
do you have an issue with that document?  I understand why you might
refuse a particular document, but not all of them, especially as all
the technical content (arguably the important part) can be maintained
in the same manner as GPL'd source.

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

See above, I think we kind of agree here.

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

None needed.

> 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.

Yup.  I _do_ see the issue, but it's not one that can be taken away
without creating other ones that are _more_ damaging to the FSF's
goals.  

> 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.

Absolutely.

> 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.

Hmm.  Well that's true, but you could always create new modifications
from an original document if it did not contain the changes you talk
about.  Please remember that even if you don't assign a license to
your text explicitly the freedom you're talking about isn't given
away.  The GFDL adds freedoms to text but restricts others.

I absolutely agree that this is not as useful as the GPL in this
regard but I have stated over and over the reasons why.  These reasons
won't go away.  The only solution is to treat each GFDL document as an
individual case.

> 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.

This is not the black and white case you seem to want to think of it
 as. 

 The creative commons license has different goals and different scope.
You can license your documentation under the creative commons license
but you will not achieve the same things as the GFDL.

Larry Lessig is not only of "renown", he is a director of the Free
Software Foundation and was actively involved in the GFDL and is now
involved in rewriting the GPL.  He writes books that do not relate
directly to GPL'd software under the creative commons license, however
a key reason for the invariant sections in the GFDL is to ensure that
license information is always conveyed - the creative commons license
cannot guarantee this and as such it is not suitable for FSF
documentation.  Nor can the creative commons license meet the
requirements of standards organisations or of several government
organisations around the world.

I'm not defending the GFDL for the sake of it.  It is right now the
only serious attempt to address this particular set of issues.  It
isn't the right tool for everything but there are strong reasons to
suggest that it is currently the _best_ tool for licensing manuals for
GPL software.

No matter what our ideals we have to enact and protect them as best we
can within the terms of international intellectual property law.  

-- 
Geoff Teale
CMed Technology            -   gteale at cmedresearch.com
Free Software Foundation   -   tealeg at member.fsf.org

/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/