[Sussex] GFDL

[Geoffrey J. Teale]

Steve Dobson <steve at dobson.org> writes:

> Geoff

Steve,

Before we star again I'd point you to this discussion on the Debian
list:

http://lists.debian.org/debian-doc/2002/12/msg00026.html

... funny how the world seems to spin around a limited number of axes :-)


> 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.

Sure.  

> 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.

The GFDL does not affect this.

> 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.

If such a document existed then it would right for Debian to exclude it
from the main distro.  The documentation distributed by the FSF does
not, to my knowledge contain anything that would get you arrested and
if it did the FSF would word it differently where possible.  

> 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. 

I understand that, but that change isn't possible in a way that would
secure the intent of the license.  Moreover Debian always has the
option of asking the author of the document to change it if necessary.

I really do understand what you are saying, but these are corner
cases.  Anywhere where the GPL is legal then the text of the GPL and
GFDL are also legal.  You are arguing from a point of principle, which
is correct, but the reality is you cannot have your cake and eat it.

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

Again.  This is the same condition as is placed on GPL code.  You
_HAVE_ to include the text of the GPL.  Yes the GFDL could be used as
a mechanism to restrict use of a particular document, but the FSF does
not use it in that way and so long as it doesn't there is _no_ real
world problem with FSF documentation.  
  
> Regardless any software/documentation should be treated on a case by
> case basis.

Yes!

> Of course it isn't - and neither is your assertion that the "invariant
> sections" as they currently stand are the only solution.

Suggest a better one that stands up legally and I'll happily raise as
an issue for the FSF's AGM.
  
> 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.

 Invariant sections are not free form.  Invariant sections
 are a special case of secondary sections as defined here:

======================================================================
A "Secondary Section" is a named appendix or a front-matter section of
the Document that deals exclusively with the relationship of the
publishers or authors of the Document to the Document's overall
subject (or to related matters) and contains nothing that could fall
directly within that overall subject. (Thus, if the Document is in
part a textbook of mathematics, a Secondary Section may not explain
any mathematics.) The relationship could be a matter of historical
connection with the subject or with related matters, or of legal,
commercial, philosophical, ethical or political position regarding
them.

The "Invariant Sections" are certain Secondary Sections whose titles
are designated, as being those of Invariant Sections, in the notice
that says that the Document is released under this License. If a
section does not fit the above definition of Secondary then it is not
allowed to be designated as Invariant. The Document may contain zero
Invariant Sections. If the Document does not identify any Invariant
Sections then there are none.
======================================================================

Note that a secondary section can only contain political or ethical
matter if it is directly related to the subject of the documentation.
Therefore you cannot add a "racist rant" as an invariant section to
the GNU emacs manual (for example).

I have yet to hear a real world example where the GFDL actively
damages software freedom or the redistribution of the manual.

The GFDL was designed specifically for technical documentation and
it's restrictions are designed within that scope.

-- 
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/