[Sussex] GFDL

[Steve Dobson]

Geoff

On Tue, Apr 05, 2005 at 01:41:15PM +0100, Geoffrey J. Teale wrote:
> 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.

An impasse - yes.  We do have an impasse here.
   
> > 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.

Agreed - the best we appear to be able to do is to beg to differ.
   
> > 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.

Well any code covered by a US software patent is not free to use in the USA
unless the patent holder has granted a license to use them.  The only one to do
that (IIRC) is IBM with some of its patents.  Sun's release of its patents
doesn't count because they are only allowed if licensed under the CDDL.
 
> > 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).

IIRC RMS once endorsed Debian GNU/Linux as a "Free" (FSF defined free) distro,
but removed it because of the non-free section.  And while I do not agree
with RMS on this point I do respect his position.

In the same vain, while a GFDL document maybe (Debian) free now, it may not
be so in the future, and by placing such documents in non-free Debian would
be protected their users from such a change should it happen.
 
> > 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.

Fair enough.
  
> ----- %< -----
> > 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.

Well maybe I was being a little over dogmatic, but I wanted to make sure
my point was made.  As of a solution, maybe there isn't one, but that feels
wrong to me somehow.  I feel there is always a solution if only you know 
how to define it.  But then again I am not a lawyer.
 
> > 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!

I don't think I made myself clear.  If no one abused an authors wishes then
you wouldn't need copyright law to protect them.  With out copyright law you
would need to grant a license to grant permission that copyright law removes.

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

Granted.
     
> > 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.

Well the bits that allow for related political rants then - those are the
bits I call "free form".
 
> > 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.

Agreed, but that is make work.  I have to regenerated all the work that I
want that has already been done - rather than just remove the few words that
I do not.  That isn't efficient is it?
 
> If the software originated from a racist group it is likely that the
> project would choose not to include it at all.

True, but I don't want start a prescient of rejecting everything from
an author just because I disagree with his political viewpoint.  I don't
think that Gandhi was a bad political leader just because he supported
the cast system.
   
> > 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.  

So lets agree that we need to reform the IP law that has caused this
impasse.
 
> 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.

I believe that you do.  But you have not yet shown me why your ways is
the less evil than mine.  You just state that publishers need invariant
sections in the form currently embodied in the GFDL.  Don't tell me to
go read the GFDL because I did that some time ago.  It is the solution
not the reasoning behind the solution.  E = MC^2 is meaningless to me 
without the thought experiments that show me how it works.

>                                                       Software is
> different, the GPL states that there is no warranty - how do you
> warranty prose, how do you protect variations in it.

I have never (in this thread) stated otherwise - that was other people.
I see the need to a different license for documentation from source code.
I just don't see that they need to take the form of the GFDL.

Steve