[Sussex] GFDL

[Steve Dobson]

Geoff

On Tue, Apr 05, 2005 at 09:49:32AM +0100, Geoffrey J. Teale wrote:
> Steve Dobson <steve at dobson.org> writes:
> > 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.

I agree that the author has the freedom to choice whatever license
(s)he wants.  An author should selected a license that helps promote 
their own ideals.
 
> > 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.

But a distro is *not* the original author of most of the software it
distributes.  Here Debian is a publisher, and you have been touting the
GFDL as publisher friendly.  While Debian is not a commercial publisher
it does publish FSF documentation and want to continue to do so.

Your company is (or was) a user of Debian.  The DFSG promises that software
that is not in the "non-free" sections is "free" (as Debian define free).
Number one on that list is "Free Redistribution" so companies can use 
Debian free software without an issue.

Now from time to time software has changed licenses.  This cause problems
when a package has to be moved from free to non-free.  It must also cause
problems for RedHat, SuSE and Mandrake, which are aimed at commercial users.

The GFDL can lead to similar problems for distributors of that documentation.
IIRC one of the Debian developers in an Arab country pointed out that while
free software was legal in his country (although not wildly used) a GFDL
document containing a rant on freedom would not be.  If he continued to
distribute Debian he would be risking life and limb.

All Debian was asking of RMS that he changed the license to allow the
removal of such text if it was going to be a problem. 
 
> > 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.  

Then the FSF is placing its goals above my freedom to distribute their software
and documentation.  I thought that *was* one of their goals!
 
> > 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.

Absolutely.
 
> 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.

Regardless any software/documentation should be treated on a case by
case basis.
 
> > 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. 

Of course it isn't - and neither is your assertion that the "invariant
sections" as they currently stand are the only solution.
 
> The creative commons license has different goals and different scope.

True.

> You can license your documentation under the creative commons license
> but you will not achieve the same things as the GFDL.

Of course not - I don't allow for the invariant section that I object
to.  I pick my evils.
 
> 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.  

I have little or no issue with the invariant sections that define clearly
the contain they should contain, like a history of authorship.  But I
do object to a free form invariant section that can contain anything the
author wants, and for which I have no ability to change or remove.  Yes,
and can write my own rant damming his, but that is only creating blot-
documentation, which I don't see as any more advantageous as blotware.

Steve