[Sussex] GFDL

[Geoffrey J. Teale]

Steve Dobson <steve at dobson.org> writes:

> 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.

Fair enough.  I see a need.  You don't that's probably an impasse.
  
>> ... 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.

:-) indeed.

> 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.

You can say the same of the FSF as well in that it's goals, and
conditions are well documented for all to see.  It's just that the FSF
is perhaps further "upstream" than Debian is.
  
> 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.

Code that is not free in some countries?  Can you think of an example,
I am not aware of this code.

> 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.  

Yup.

> 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.

Yes, but equally it would be stupid of the project to outright outlaw
GFDL documentation.  I don't particularly see a problem with Debian
defining GFDL documentation as "Non-Free" if they wish (though I do
not agree with this definition).

> 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).

That's not what I was saying.  I was saying it makes that restriction
to allow it to be used as legal documentation where there are
strenuous conditions to comply with - this is not the whole reason,
but an important part of it.
 
----- %< -----
> 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."

Hmm.  Thats a little dogmatic, but I take the point and always have.
I just don't see a solution that solves the same set of problems.

> 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.

No. This is fundamentally wrong.  Both the GFDL and the GPL give you
freedoms you would not have where no license was required!

You cannot just choose to ignore the law, not matter what your ideals.
    
> 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 :-)

There are _no_ free form invariant sections in the GFDL.  See my
previous response.

> But an addition to GNU Emacs that allowed one to trace a family tree
> that included race information could, could it not?

There is of course leeway in the wording, but I doubt that these kind
of mental leaps would stand up to scrutiny.  Even if such a situation
occurred you could simply choose to use the manual in the form it left
the FSF (and modify from that point) instead of using the
documentation provided by the racists.

If the software originated from a racist group it is likely that the
project would choose not to include it at all.
  
> 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).

Yes, but you are talking about not enacting laws.  The GFDL does not
create law it just navigates its way through the existing laws.  The
point I am making over and over is that you cannot have what you are
asking for in the terms of todays IP law and still achieve the goals
for which the GFDL was designed.  

I really do understand and sympathise with what you are saying but the
GFDL represents a choice between freedoms because you cannot be free
to use the documentation in one context when you are free to use it in
another and you cannot protect the authors and publishers without
taking away a very small set of modification rights.  Software is
different, the GPL states that there is no warranty - how do you
warranty prose, how do you protect variations in it.  How do you
detect when someone has lifted prose and used it in a non-free
document?  Some of these problems aren't even solved the GFDL, but it
goes further than any other license I've come across to do this
without doing anything truly damaging.
 
> But they are wooly in certain parts, and could be better defined (IMHO).

Perhaps.  Though I doubt you or I could write a better one.  The
invariant sections are pretty well nailed down.


-- 
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/