[Sussex] GFDL

[Steve Dobson]

Geoff

On Tue, Apr 05, 2005 at 11:31:05AM +0100, Geoffrey J. Teale wrote:
> 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

I was signed up to debian-legal at around that time and was one of the
people asking questions of RMS.  RMS failed to convince me of the need
for invariant sections then as you are now.
 
> ... funny how the world seems to spin around a limited number of axes :-)
 
I suspect that this is because there are only a limited number of basic
issues - although the number of interpretations are infinite.
 
> > 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.

And it was not my intent to suggest that it did.  I was just trying to point
out that Debian has a set of polices that are well documented so that Debian
users can make informed decisions on which bits of the Debian archives to 
use.  If you don't want software that my have resitions because of "not for
commercial use", patents, etc, then don't use non-free.  If you don't want
software with export restrictions from the US don't use non-US.
 
> > 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.  

Yes, but the FSF is not the only source of GPL or GFDL licesed packages.
An important part of the GPL is that should a software package contain 
code that, while free in the authors country, is not free in some countries,
and those parts that are non-free can be removed before being distributed.

Any GPL licensed code and always be fixed if found to be problematic, even
post release.  The GPL licenses code can therefore be rubber stamped into
Debian, as any problems can always be fixed.  The GFDL, by forbidding
modification of part of a document does not always allow Debian to modify
the document so that it is suitable for Debian distribution.  This is the
sticking point as I understand it.  Not that the author isn't free to
selected another license, or that the distro isn't free not to include it
in the first place.
 
>         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.

I have never argued the legality of the GFDL, far from it.  If the GFDL
wasn't legal allowed to enforce the invariant section upon me I just
remove them (just as I used US software patent code here in the UK without
paying a royalty).
 
> Again.  This is the same condition as is placed on GPL code.  You
> _HAVE_ to include the text of the GPL.

Not quite.  The GPL clearly lays out what parts of the source are
invariant:

    "1. You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of the Program's
    source code as you receive it, in any medium, provided that you
    conspicuously and appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate
    copyright notice and disclaimer of warranty; keep intact all the
    notices that refer to this License and to the absence of any warranty;
    and give any other recipients of the Program a copy of this License
    along with the Program."

and

    "2. You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion
    of it, thus forming a work based on the Program, and copy and
    distribute such modifications or work under the terms of Section 1
    above, provided that you also meet all of these conditions:

       "a) You must cause the modified files to carry prominent notices
       stating that you changed the files and the date of any change.

       "b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in
       whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any
       part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third
       parties under the terms of this License.

       "c) If the modified program normally reads commands interactively
       when run, you must cause it, when started running for such
       interactive use in the most ordinary way, to print or display an
       announcement including an appropriate copyright notice and a
       notice that there is no warranty (or else, saying that you provide
       a warranty) and that users may redistribute the program under
       these conditions, and telling the user how to view a copy of this
       License.  (Exception: if the Program itself is interactive but
       does not normally print such an announcement, your work based on
       the Program is not required to print an announcement.)"

I see in the GPL the requirement to keep copyright and warranty notices
and verbatim copies of the GPL but that it all.  The GFDL is placing more
restrictions that those imposed by the GPL.  I don't think RMS is remembering
his "Animal Farm":

      "All animals are created equal, but some are more equal than others."

or

      "Four legs good, two legs better."

>                                         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.  

But laws and licenses are not there for those of use that act properly,
but to aid in punishing those that do not want to play fair.
   
> > 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.

Remove free from invariant sections.  I have no problem with invariant 
sections that detail their content, like copyright notices, warranty notices
or credit to past authors.  It is only the free form, where anything goes,
that I take issue with.  Oh, look.  I did say that already :-)

> > 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).

But an addition to GNU Emacs that allowed one to trace a family tree
that included race information could, could it not?
 
> I have yet to hear a real world example where the GFDL actively
> damages software freedom or the redistribution of the manual.

I have yet to hear of any software patent being used against F/OSS but
that doesn't mean I want laws allowing that possibility (even though I
believe that such a case would be doomed to failure).
 
> The GFDL was designed specifically for technical documentation and
> it's restrictions are designed within that scope.

But they are wooly in certain parts, and could be better defined (IMHO).

Steve