Slashdot Mirror
The LDP and Debian
Guylhem writes: "The former LDP license was the first license used for our documentation. While we are now recommending the GNU FDL and the OPL 1 without options A or B, many documents are still licensed under the LDPL. David Merril, our Collection Coordinator, noticed that the LDPL is "not free" according to the Debian Free Software Guidelines.
We have to get in touch with the authors as soon as possible or 2/3 of the LDP document collection will be removed from the base Debian distribution because the code freeze is happening in 2 days. Maybe some of the LDP unreachable authors are reading slashdot and could take 1 minute to submit an updated document licensed under the FDL or OPL v1 -A -B ? Another solution is to find volunteers to rewrite from scratch the concerned documents."
who is *so tired* of hearing about how some free license is sublty not free enough for somebody else's purposes? This self-important bullshit ought to stop: It's not a big deal, get back to hacking code.
by rewritting, do you mean cutting and pasting, or just rewritting it so it says the same things, only slightly differently?
The universe is held together with duct tape and karma. What goes around, comes around, and gets stuck to your forehead.
So, 2 days before a freeze, you notice this problem, and you're just going to remove all the doc rather than release it anyway? If you were a company, I'd be selling stock.
It's rare that you're presented with a knob whose only two positions are Make History and Flee Your Glorious Destiny.
Would they really use a code freeze as an excuse for putting out a release with the majority of it's documentation removed?
Surely not. I would think the intelligent thing to do would be to set a seperate freeze date for the documentation.
Perhaps you guys are missing the point?
-linux... they can't *give* that shit away.
Do a majority of open source software users actually pay attention to the licenses of the software packages they utilize? I use a lot of GPL applications yet I have never really sat down an actually read the entire GPL. However, I do understand that if I do violate the GPL, I have to put up with Richard Stallman breathing down my neck. Not appealing idea! Am I alone in a crowd? Does everyone read the software license?
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
You've got a point.
I think that most people could care less about the licence as long as it does what they want.
As far as I understand, just using the application is no problem, and you really don't need to be concerned with the license other than knowing it exists. You DO need to pay close attention to the license if you are planning on modifying/releasing any of the source code for the GPL applications.
Unix is user friendly, it's just selective about who its friends are.
As a user, there is no real reason to be concerned about the license under which you receive a particular software package, assuming you know the salient points of the requirements (payment, installation and usage restrictions.) It becomes an issue if you want to distribute that software to another party.
Debian is doing a distribution, so they care.
"Another solution is to find volunteers to rewrite from scratch the concerned documents"
... and easier to explain to your mother than kernel hacking.
Nothing like the glory of writing the help files. Its the most visisble part of any program
Cruise TT
I do. Some of the licenses for proprietary software are laughworthy. The MS Word license used to, and maybe still does, contain a line that went something like "This software is not to be used for operation of nuclear power plants".
Best Slashdot Co
What if I just use a sufficiently free app without reading the insufficiently free documentation? Am I still OK?
this is getting old and so are you
blog
I clicked on the links in the article, but I didn't find anything that said what part of the LDP made it non-free. The license seems pretty free to me.
IMHO, in an ideal world, there should be a license for every kind of intellectual property. For source code, text, music, movies, ideas (=patents), everything. It's not very logical to make up different licenses because it gets you into trouble as soon as you want to combine media (write a game using open music, make a movie of an open book, distribute documentation with your software...).
Documentation is not Software.. so why does it have to follow the free software guidelines?
I wholeheartedly agree. I'm quite pleased with my Debian distribution but I'm also tired of the RMS-like stubborness in regards to licensing and such. If this stuff continues I may move off to a different distribution (my friend says Slackware is shipping with 2.4 kernels!....hehehe).
While I'm not overly concerned about the docs not being on the medium, perhaps there are those who are installing at a single-computer home without access to the internet. This "conform to our license or else get booted from the dist" is extreme.
"...and generally behaved in a manner one can only describe as despicable." - February 27 2001, Michael Sims
I'm probably missing something obvious but I see no conflict between the Debian policy and old LDP license. The license grants the right to freely distribute the original and none of the restrictions it has for derived works conflict with the Debian policy.
What am I missing?
Remove the unupdated docs, but provide links to wherever they are kept currently. That way users get to read the help if they need it and it can be replaced later.
-p
Guess it's time to hunt down some links about this.
I don't want knowledge. I want certainty. - Law, David Bowie
Am I missing something? Or does this sound to anyone else like it would have been noticed before? (Especially among the Debian crowd?)
Also, this isn't something to stop the code freeze for? I thought code freezes were done to get everything in order for releasing the next version. Clearly, not everything is ready, so it would make sense to me not to freeze the code...
an updated version without documentation wouldn't be much of an updated version!
libertarianswag.com
It requires derived works to be labeled as such, and credit to the original authors be given, and several other things along those lines.
Now.. those are all fair, and nice.. but are in conflict with the 'free software' guidelines.
I still maintian, though, Documentation is not Software... and to treat it by the same standards is wrong.
So if I want to write a OPE with the DLP or FOL, under option 2a or 17f of the GRL, will the ODP tell me I'm SOL? I want to make sure that FOE and OAF are OAL, otherwise the project might be APO. Just making sure.
over documentation's License? Sheesh.
How 'bout just more documentation. Has the man page entry for logout been written yet?
When in doubt, have a man come through a door with a gun in his hand.
I myself have skimmed the GPL, and some of other propriatary licenses. (I've read a lot of arguments on Slashdot too.) I have the general idea of them all, I try to abide by them, and that's about it.
Do a majority of open source software users actually pay attention to the licenses of the software packages they utilize?
You don't need to read the GPL, or even agree to it, if you are just using GPL software, it's only when you copy software do you need a licence from the original copyright owner.
From the GPL:
5. You are not required to accept this License, since you have not signed it. However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or distribute the Program or its derivative works. These actions are prohibited by law if you do not accept this License. Therefore, by modifying or distributing the Program (or any work based on the Program), you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so, and all its terms and conditions for copying, distributing or modifying the Program or works based on it.
Moneyed corporations, non-working 'poor' and criminal prisoners are turning productive citizens into tax-slaves.
I know I'm being completely unreasonable, but wouldn't it be grand to stop dealing with so much legal mumbo-jumbo and lining the pockets of scores of lawyers who end up making bucks off of licensing disputes?
Is human and corporate morality so lacking that we REALLY need this stuff? I don't do much with licensing myself and if I start to I hope to god it isn't as bad as it seems. If someone is only asking for credit, and not giving them a bad name, is it really violated that often? I mean, I present my source code, and just say "Use it, if you change it or want to distribute it let me know." I think that should be more than sufficient. This licensing crap just seems like it is merely a leading indicator of our complete inability to regulate ourselves on a personal and ethical level.
Perhaps it's just me dreaming about a non-defunct human race, but step back for a second and take a moment to realize how pitiful this truly is.
A code freeze on documentation?
How appropriate, seeing as most code has a documentation freeze.
RTFM, indeed. How about CTFM, first.
Cheers,
Moose.
If anyone ever says "you are missing the point", reply, "no I'm not, I see it several inches above your forehead".
.
Have you read the moderator guidelines? Well, have you, PUNK? (and I want a Karma: Gnarly option)
I think Debian is very strict on their categorization and they're very consistent too. They've never been shy to kick out projects they didn't find fitted their distribution (think about KDE for example). I think they should keep going that way.
But switching like that only 2 days in advance?!?!?!?! That's really retarded. As an author, if I received an email that basically boils down to: "Please help us, but you don't really have time to think or discuss, we don't have time", I'd just reply "f**k off".
How much effort has been wasted rewriting stuff because someone didn't like the "license" on the original? Gnome comes immediately to mind, and I'm sure there are many other instances like this.
Imagine how much futher along open source software (oh, excuse me, free software) would be if there wasn't so much needless duplication of effort over something as stupid as license terms.
This alphabet soup of licenses (GPL, LGPL, BSDL, FDL, OPL v1 -A -B, LDP, etc.) is really getting out of hand. Do we want to be software developers and documentation writers, or do we want to be amateur lawyers?
Do you use Debian? There are many good reasons to use Debian and one of them is that if you use it you know you won't be using non-free software (if you so choose). This may not be important to you but I suspect that to many Debian users it is. In fact, it was the primary reason that Debian was created.
Someone else said that if Debian was a company and was doing this sort of culling of non-free documentation right before a distribution freeze then he would be selling stock. The person is obviously an example of the sort of person who does not care whatsoever about Free software, but more probably about free rides. Debian is not a company. It never will be. It never should be. Thank God. It exists to do exactly this sort of thing and I, for one, am supremely thankful.
If you are only *using* GPL software, and not distributing it, you cannot break the license.
If you intend to distribute GPL software, then you should read the license.
I've read all the most commonly used licenses under the Open Source Inititave (GPL, LGPL, Artistic, BSD, etc.), but I almost never read propreity licenses. Even the GPL's leagalees looks tame in comparison.
Oh, and I also check the terms of service for DNS providers, but almost never for other places.
Not a typewriter
With a free license, you don't need to read it. The point of a free software license is that all it does is remove certain copyright restrictions from you. So, if you just use the software, and don't redistribute or modify it, there is no need to read the license as the use is subject to normal copyright law.
In theory, you don't even have to agree to the license, i.e. you can decide to be subject to normal copyright restriction instead. The GPL explicitly offers you this possibility:
"You are not required to accept this License, since you have not signed it. However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or distribute the Program or its derivative works. These actions are prohibited by law if you do not accept this License."
I think not having to worry about license issues if you just use the software is one of the biggest advantages of free software for non-developers. I also believe it is a good thing that Debian insists on 100% free software, because it makes sure that by just installing and using the software on as many computers as you like you will never violate any copyrights. I am however not so happy to see that Debian decides to enforce this policy two days before feature freeze...
Sig (appended to the end of comments I post, 54 chars)
Ooh, it's sure easy to see how the LDP license would destroy the Free Software community if it were allowed to persist. Good thing that those alert folks at Debian are on the case: I'd hate to think they just had their heads in the usual location. I'm sure there will be no problem locating the authors of two-thirds of the Linux documentation and persuading them to fiddle with licensing issues.
And a good thing, too, because it would be horrific if everyone just started automatically sticking the "Non-Free" pool into their sources.list. After all, it isn't like most people run Debian just because they want a Free As In Beer distro which is easy to upgrade!
Hats off to the Deb folks! I'm sure glad I recently donated cash to their cause!
It seems that the licenses these fellows distributed their (contributed) documentation as has been acceptable for all this time with other distributions (Debian included). To sit there and strong-arm them to change their licenses (and strong-arming it is!) is a bit shady.
I claim that this is strong-arming because of the short time frame given to make a choice after which they cannot neccessarily revert from in an easy way (maybe they can?). "You have to days to change your license or get excluded from the final Debian distribution" is what I read above. If RedHat pulled this shit there'd be people having a hissy-fit!
As an author of several documents, with several more in the pipeline, I find myself remarkably unmoved by this self-inflicted crisis even though I use Debian myself.
The problem is that Debian is quickly becoming just as bad as Microsoft in terms of insisting that everyone play the games by their rules, freezing out everyone else. Wanting to keep the core distribution "pure" is one thing, but the zealots are clearly driving out the pragmatists. I'm getting *real* tired of reinventing tools to get around artifical constraints, and if it weren't for apt I would have switched distros long ago.
Now they suddenly announce that since 2/3 of LDP does not satisfy their definition of "free," they're going to drop them. Not move them into "non-free," drop them outright. The only way to avoid this is for authors to drop everything else in their life to make these changes.
And, rubbing salt in this wound, this question was clearly written by one of the persons responsible for dropping these documents. Yet he doesn't feel the need to actually provide a link to a list of the documents in question. We're clearly supposed to waste even more time trying to track down that list on the Debian site because this guy can't be bothered to provide the link in his message.
The message is clear: the volunteer authors are stupid (choosing the 'wrong' license, even though it was the best available at the time, and then not rushing to change it immediately once the Debian gods spoke from on high), and we don't even deserve the courtesy of having a list prepared that we can quickly check.
I'm real motivated to check my licenses now. Let me pencil it in - 2PM, December 5, 2184. Unless it's really urgent, in which case I'll just add a quick clause prohibiting its distribution within a Debian package and force this into a moot issue.
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. -- H L Mencken
But, why do we keep having to hear about this license isn't blessed so *everything* has to go. I understand Debian's & GNU's manifesto, but why are they mentioning it every time they speak in the community? We already know about it!
Red Hat doens't go around all the time saying that they like to make money to the community, to the shareholders maybe.
I get the same fuzzy feeling whenever I hear about OpenBSD. If it isn't a BSD license, trash it.
Just on a side note, is it because I don't understand the license thing fully that I can't get either Debian or OpenBSD to install?
maybe if the debian people spent more time making an installer that didn't suck and fixing their idiotic termcap files instead of hoohawing over licenses on HOWTOs, they'd have more mindshare...
Well good for the zealots. Good for the radicals. Good for the people that want to do the right thing. I'll just go on using my usable and friendly distributions, like SuSE.
Honestly, Debian has always held appeal for me. I just can't get beyond the chest tumping, the politics, and the general sense of rabid fanaticism that pervades the project.
One argument I've heard is that I can go get the projects and packages that I want and weren't included. But please, I'm tired of installing a distribution, then installing 10 or 20 new packages on top of that.
Enough rambling. I have important things to do now. Like drink. And moderate. But all in moderaton.
The middle mind speaks!
Somehow I doubt RMS sees the irony. I wrote a short piece about this back on March 31, 1999: Why "GNU/Linux" is a Misnomer In the 2.5 years since then, the FSF still has not released a GNU distribution, relying instead on the Debian project to do what they won't.
Given that "The GNU Project" doesn't credit the X Window System anywhere in its name, RMS has no moral high ground to stand on when he demands that all Linux-based systems be referred to as "GNU/Linux" systems.
It's doubly ironic that the older BSD license was incompatible with the GPL specifically because of the so-called "advertising clause" that requires credit be given for the BSD-licensed software.
Isn't it funny how RMS feels it isn't necessary to credit BSD or X Windows, yet demands such credit for the GNU project? It's disingenuous hypocrisy, through and through. If someone makes a free software distribution, they should be able to call it anything they want, whether "GNU", "Linux", "BSD" or anything else is included in the name.
After all, wasn't this all supposed to be about freedom? I guess that doesn't include the freedom to choose the name...
Deven
"Simple things should be simple, and complex things should be possible." - Alan Kay
A-fucking-men.
IAAL,BIANLY
But, even in this case, the FSF (RMS himself probably wouldn't get involved), if it holds the copyright on the code, would most likely just ask you to comply.
The worst I've seen is explicit withdrawl of permission by the FSF (on FSF copyright code) to use the code until someone is assigned from within the offender's organization to receive GPL training from the FSF.
Finally, the FSF does not drag your name through the mud, as it were, if you make an honest mistake.
And yes, I speak with some degree of authority on the by RMS to a former employer's developers.
You could've hired me.
And what code do you hack? I'm getting rather tired of self-important Slashdot posters who feel that these slackers should go back in the kitchen and bake some pie. We, the coders of various open source and/or free software applications write the code for our own reasons. If you don't like the code or don't feel that it's up to your standards/schedules, then don't use it. We'll be just as happy either way.
Thank you.
As one who uses debian (testing + some unstable packages compiled from source) at both work and home extensively I, for one, appreciate all that the debian developers do, and the fact that they are so precise (some might say pedantic) about software and documentation licenses. In this way I, as a system administrator, have a very easy time keeping my employer compliant to any and all licenses. Come audit time, that is a very nice feeling indeed.
So yes, we who work in the real world with Free Software, Open Source, and commercial products in fact benefit very directly and very immediately from such vigilence, and I for one appreciate it greatly.
Yes, catching this faux pas earlier in the release cycle would have been nice, but for whatever reason that did not happen. Oh well. So the packages move from main to non-free. They're still available if they're really needed, but for those of us in commercial environments using GNU/Linux for something other than hobbiest tinkering such distinctions are well founded and important, and having that explicit division between free (as in freedom) and non-free (as in restricted in some significant fashion) is immensly helpful, even critical.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
And yes, I speak with some degree of authority on the subject, having arranged a lecture by RMS to a former employer's developers on the subject of GPL compliance.
You could've hired me.
How can this be a troll. Not being a GPL buff, I actually learned something interesting from the parent post.
Ugh... that would be Slackware 8... Perosnally, I'm not a big fan of the thing, for the amazing distro that they normally put out Slackware 8.0 is a disappointment. I have trouble getting it to install, when it does install it freezes my machine, and so on. MY opinion is to grab 7.1, install it, and then replace the packages you need newer versions of with the ones from Slack 8.0.
I really have nothing else to day. The moderators are smoking crack lately.
I'd say that omitting GIF code from GIMP is a rather important thing if you're not interested in having Unisys' lawyers call you to ask you to fill a briefcase with money for them.
If Debian redistributes stuff that they haven't got permission to redistribute, then that is a big deal.
The situation with the LDP seems rather silly; if people sent documents to the LDP, it seems rather nonsensical that those documents could possibly not be redistributable. Nonetheless, if there's a legitimate concern, then it is entirely appropriate for the documents to be "downgraded in apparent status."
This is not a disaster; if a whack of docs fall out of Debian for a while, this is not likely to lead to goats falling from the sky and other such silliness.
The shrill reaction of "Oh, we'll have to get a bunch of documents rewritten by tomorrow!" is certainly silly...
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
It's a pity; I think I have a knack for creating usable documentation (and it's safer than asking me to write kernel patches, anyway); but that's one flaming hoop too many to jump through.
"Ain't no right way to do a wrong thing."
To answer your question very briefly, it does me no good to get free (speech) software when I get free (beer) documentation with it. In that situation, I can change the software but not the documentation- and who would want that??
Do you like Japanese imports?
the documentation license doesn't matter! It's part of the LDP and was intended to be freely used and distributed from the start. sheesh. Authors only "put" their document under that license because it was the default, nobody actively gave a shit.
morons. remove the docs for this reason and its your own fucking loss.
i agree, this is not a troll, its a useful piece of info. this should be modded up as informative
Personally, I wouldn't lose any sleep if the LDP documents were granted a temporary reprieve from their DFSG problems long enough to get into woody. It also won't bother me if 2/3 of them have to go into non-free. The documentation will be available to those who want it, either way.
But I see more than little irony in all the hysterical chest-thumping going on in the replies to this message from people who admit they haven't even read the DFSG, or even the GPL, and then bitch about Debian's "hysterical chest-thumping", of which I can find none. David Merrill and Colin Watson have been perfectly civil with each other and everyone else on this issue. Whatever crisis there is here is being manufactured, Katz-like, by armchair developers who don't appear to have any notion of the practical matters behind operating a free software project. Both Colin and David have this understanding, which is probably why they don't have a problem with each other.
Get caught up on the issues, first, mmmkay? The DFSG wasn't sprung on people last week. It's been around for years. So has the OSD. So has the FSF's definition of free software. People who need a slashdot story to bring the fact that free licenses permit modification to their attention don't get any sympathy from me.
What happened in this situation was clearly just misfortune. Neither the LDP documentation maintainer or the Debian package maintainer were aware of this situation until recently. Maybe they should have, but that's spilt milk. The simple truth is that Debian didn't schedule its freeze to screw the LDP. And, having watched the situation develop on the debian-legal list, I don't think the LDP will get screwed. Everybody with an actual stake in this who has spoken up wants to make this work. Some folks just used a bad license for their documentation. That's too bad. You live and you learn. You either relicense it or you don't. Debian will continue to welcome freely licensed documentation with open arms.
You know, for the life of me I can't imagine why anyone would want the freedom to modify technical documentation. It's not like software ever changes, right? I mean, none of us own any books on computers or software that say things like "Second Edition" or "Third Edition", right? And certainly such fundamental, landmark works as The Art of Computer Programming have never required the scarcest revision, let alone a rewrite to switch from MIX to MMIX...right?
Address-collecting spam robots don't know how to crack ROT13. Do you?
IMO, the LDP license is much better than the one Debian wants to use. There is a good reason why changes to the documentation should make it back to the original authors, so they can update their documents. Documentation isn't software. When someone makes a change to software somewhere, and has to update the documentation, the corrosponding changes should be made at the LDP. I shouldn't have to worry if the "Apache Howto" at the LDP website is no longer valid, because somebody at RedHat modified the wording of a "DocumentRoot" to "DocumentStart". According to the LDP license, if someone makes a change like this and documents it (in the RH docs), the change should be forwarded onto the LDP, so they can update/add to theirs, so everyone knows whats going on. This is not the case with the proposed Debian license. People can make changes willy-nlly, and the LDP docs get all out of sync. i think this is ridiculous, and I encourage all LDP authors to not change anything. If the Debian fanatics insist on it, let them write their own docs.
Fucky? Is that you?
Yes, someone(s) with a particular ax to grind are spending a lot of moderation points on these threads. If the mods were for Offtopic I might see at least a valid argument (if not agree with it), but the Trolls and Flamebaits suggest a concerted effort to suppress any questioning of the party line.
Sort of like John Ashcroft's performance today, eh?
sPh
Why push a major release out the door sans 2/3 of the documetation rather than wait a week or two to get the authors' okay and send everything out at once?
Barring that, send the doc out two weeks after the distribution. Two weeks from now, the enduser can update his or her documentation by opening a shell and typing "apt-get upgrade". Why is this becoming a major ideological flamewar? Am I missing something here?
"Can't you see that everyone is buying station wagons?"
The problem with this is that it doesn't distinguish between creating and distributing derived works. As is, the license requires you to send any derived works, even those created in the privacy of your own home and not distributed to anyone else, to the LDP.
-- THIS SPACE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK -- --
Here's some things to keep in mind:
- This is nothing to get completely bent out of shape about
- If an organization forming a distro wants to be particularly zealous in its pursuit of what it considers to be the best OS out there - more power to em
- There are enough Linux distros around to keep anyone and everyone happy. If someone is partial to having the full LDP, even though it is "not free," it is almost guaranteed that another distro will pick it up
Personally, I have better things to do than get caught up in semanticsHmmm...
That is an heuristic that works not only for software as read in a /. article, it's also true for documentation material.
/. article (originally published at theregister.co.uk), thanks to google and friends, all documents who have been posted on the web are doomed to be archived for a long time in the search engines cache databases. So no worry, if you can't find it on debian.org, seek it with google.
I am glad that I burned these iso images of the past distros. That's one way to deal with the problem. They won't take it away from my CDRs (until MPAA finds a way to do that of course.)
And I wouldn't worry too much about their action of withdrawing information from their web site. According to another
Going back to the post: these 2 days deadline seems so unrealistic that it's almost funny to read it. Is the project of documenting a well-known-so-hard-to-install Linux distro (the worse according to Linux Journal 12/01) lacking attention so badly that its internal mailing lists don't provide enough communication to the documentation authors/maintainers? This is a puzzling decision with little thinking on the consequences that has been made at Debian.
Who is going to suffer at the end? Well, the poor lad who is trying to use Debian of course. This guy is going to move back to RH (or even worse, the dark side) in no time. Thanks guys.
PPA
-- I feel better now. Thanks for asking.
Debian Potato is so fucking old I'm seeing sprouts coming out the side of my conputer.
Why in god's name would I use google's cache, when all the documentaion in question is from www.linuxdoc.org, and is going to stay there, regardless if all the Debian maintainers burn in hell or not.
a moderate drunk, or are you commanding us to moderate while drunk? The last line (sig?) in your post was a little unclear.... Thanks.
The FDL ain't free either. It's quite ironic that Debian wants to convert LDP docs to FDL docs because the former doesn't meet the Debian definition of Free. Well the latter doesn't either. If it wasn't for the fact that the FDL came from GNU, Debian would reject it in a heartbeat.
According the the FSF's four freedoms, the OSI Open Source Definition, and the Debian guidelines, any license that allows immutable sections in the body of a work cannot be Free. Geez.
Of course, documentation should not follow the same rules as software. The root problem is that Debian needs separate guidelines for docs than they do for software. Both LDP and FDL (as well as "copy this at your leisure" licenses) should be allowed.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
I wish I had some mod points...
*sigh* back to work...
One day, I incorporate 1/4 of a Free software package's code into my new program, so I need to cut and paste, say, 1/4 of the documentation for the package to make the documentation for my program.
At which point, having to send changes to parts of the documentation for my program back to the authors of documentation for a different program is a waste of everybody's time .
-- Jamie
Do a majority of proprietary software users actually pay attention to the licenses of the software packages they utilize?
."
... and (ii) permit a maximum of five (5) COMPUTERS to connect to the single COMPUTER running the SOFTWARE PRODUCT solely to access the Internet using the "Internet Connection Sharing" feature of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT. You may not allow these connected COMPUTERS to use any other components of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT, nor to invoke application sharing as described below. The five (5) connection maximum includes any indirect connections made through software or hardware which pools or aggregates connections."
If they did, I'd think we'd have a lot more converts to free software.
Hmm...here are some choice excepts from the Windows EULA:
"If the SOFTWARE PRODUCT is not accompanied by a new computer system or computer system component, you may not use or copy the SOFTWARE PRODUCT."
"The SOFTWARE PRODUCT may not be installed, accessed, displayed, run, shared or used concurrently on or from different computers, including a workstation, terminal or other digital electronic device ("Devices")
"If the SOFTWARE PRODUCT is Windows 98, you may additionally
"Processor Limitation - The SOFTWARE PRODUCT may be used by no more than the maximum number of processors of the COMPUTER indicated at the top of this EULA." (Note: I see no number at the top of the EULA which I got from c:\windows\help\license.txt -- also this is a violation of RMS's freedom 0, the ability to use the software in any way)
"You may not rent, lease or lend the SOFTWARE PRODUCT."
"Termination. Without prejudice to any other rights, Manufacturer or MS may terminate this EULA if you fail to comply with the terms and conditions of this EULA. In such event, you must destroy all copies of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT and all of its component parts."
Here's another question, do a majority of the users of proprietary software actually agree to all of the EULA when they click "I Agree" ? What about the majority of free software users?
Dallas-Fort Worth?
-1 Offtopic
No modification is allowed at all. According to the Debian Free Software Guidelines (which they are now applying to ALL included works, not just software), they require that modifications are allowed.
If they drop the text of the license, then they'd have to drop every package licensed under the GPL (as the license requires including a copy of the license).
1. You have the code (comprised of source files) making a software product at some version point.
2. You have licenses.
3. You have one or more links between the two.
4. You have a database containing 1-3. Possibly maintained by the PTO.
The source code contains a hyperlink pointing to the appropriate license.
You can then opt to have all of yours source tarballs synchronize themselves with the licensing.
If the licenses are in a regular format, you could even query this hypothetical licensing database, to make sure you don't use any code not conforming to your particular extremist viewpoint.
Consider this utopia, where the legalistic...individuals...can apply Moore's Law to the hairsplitting endeavor
(roughly every 18 months the amount of convoluted pettifoggery in licenses doubles)
and those more focused on mission accomplishment can pursue getting a job done in peace, knowing the legal demon is contained, if not exorcised.
Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
"Massive freeze coming in just two days! We realized that your stuff is out of date and the issues must be fixed by the new deadline! Failure to comply will result in the complete removal of your code from the project!
Please make sure all updated documents are submitted to change management, using the proper forms. All forms must be approved by upper management before changes take place!
Good luck with the deadline!"
I'm the maintainer of the Debian packages containing the English-language HOWTOs distributed by the Linux Documentation Project.
A few days ago, during a discussion we were having about other things, David Merrill brought it to my attention that many of the LDP documents didn't belong in our main distribution. With the evidence in front of me, it was hard for me not to agree, and, once I knew of the problem, I felt bound to do something about it.
The timing, of course, was unfortunate, coming as it did so close to the woody freeze. Yes, I should have noticed it earlier, but to be honest I've been kind of busy writing code and fixing bugs in the three months or so since I've been working on Debian's HOWTO packages. I certainly wouldn't have planned it this way; the situation now leaves me with less than three weeks to implement a bunch of code to parse the LDP database and to split the packages up, which is definitely not something I enjoy doing at the end of a release cycle, so we aren't doing this for our own amusement.
Personally, I am extremely disappointed that much of the doc-linux packages will have to become doc-linux-non-free-html and doc-linux-non-free-text. I didn't become the doc-linux maintainer with the intention of removing documentation from the standard installation! I'll be doing my best to ensure that any documents that we start being able to distribute in main are moved back into main as soon as possible, including submitting updates for point releases of woody and persuading the release manager to include them. I'll also be checking by hand as many of the documents in non-free as I can just in case they really are free. The two days mentioned in the story, incidentally, are when the relevant part of the freeze starts, not when it ends, so the notice that's been given to authors isn't quite so ridiculously short as it sounds. Any documents that get relicensed in the next month and a bit will be included in main for woody, and it wouldn't surprise me if that deadline could be allowed to slip a bit.
I find it fascinating that lots of people seem to think that Debian is somehow beating its chest, stirring trouble, or being generally obnoxious. This is simply not true. First of all, we're reacting to concerns from the LDP, and secondly all the conversations I've had with LDP people, especially David Merrill, have been very civil and friendly. (Incidentally, David, if you're reading this, I owe you a drink of your choice.)
If you'd like to see where this discussion started, try the thread about this on debian-legal. Although David's original mail to me wasn't sent to that mailing list, I think the linked article quotes everything important.
I wish David and the LDP volunteers all the best, and I dearly hope that the current situation will be temporary.
I once read a piece about the move of the Debian packages' documentation from /usr/doc to /usr/share/doc . It was said that the transfer would require altering of thousands of packages. (Here, thousands is to be taken literally.) In the end I believe they came up with some kind of symlink hack to resolve the problem of altering all these packages.
;-))))
Just for the figure, I wonder exactly how much documentation we are talking about now.
(P.S.: FP w.o. whining about what licences Debian should accept!!
"We can confirm that Debian does *not* ship the version with the trojan horse. Our version predates it." [CA-2002-28]
it sure is. Isn't it ?
Everything was chugging along nicely, when David uncovered a concern. His conscience tugged at his mind and heart, and he reported it to you. That's fine, and in a strictly moral sense it was the right thing to do. However, look at the trouble it has caused. Do you doubt that you'll be able to resolve most of the license issues? Do you think that moving everything to non-free then back to free is going to be non-trivial or fun (you've already answered that one)? Perhaps taking a more ambiguous, more practical stance would have been the better path. The easier path. There are times where we should stand up for what we believe in, and fight to preserve our ethics and morals. There are times where we benefit so much more from keeping those ethics and morals in our sight, but taking a gentler path (yet less certain path) to the final goal. Just because you lose one battle, it doesn't mean that you will lose the war.
Having said all of that, and having called you a bunch of fools, let me say how much I admire the people who write, document, and maintain free software. Thanks for your effort helping to make Linux what it is today.
The middle mind speaks!
the timing suggests blatant extortion... "you got 2 days to comply with our demands or we won't ship your documentation." that's not cool at all, it's heavy-handed and totalitarian. i'd tell debian to go piss up a rope.
Having it on the site is ok as long as one has a broad-band connection. I prefer to get my updates on CDs. The number of CDs in a Debian set seems to range between 3 and 7. I think that's due to whether or not source is included, but perhaps documentation will now be a part of the difference.
.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
I have to agree if you take out this documentaion and I can't connect to the internet how am I supposed to fix the machine. Couldn't Debian just put out a call to the writers and say this is the last release that we will allow rewrite this document dor inclusion into version 3 or 4 or whetever is next. I think they might alienate too many people with this one.
John Pisini
http://www.cafecomputer.com
Registered Linux User #100542
"No. Try not. Do. Or do not. There is no try." -- Yoda
Has anyone looked at the LDP recently? Its a nunch of articles by different people that mostly seems to be written in about 1997. There doesn't seem to be any kind of uniform style guidelines, people keep talking about thier favourite Linux distribution versus the LSB (which all Linux documentation should be written for) and many commonly unnecessary tasks - like getting modelines for yoru monitor (everything made in the last few years can be DCC probled) and manually entering in DNS servers for yoru modem connection (that's almost never necessary these days - every consumer ISP I know of who uses modems sends such information as part of PPP negotiations). The LDP expect new users to unecessarily rcecompile their kernel (nto even just a single module, their entire kernel) at every chance, and doesn't focus on security as much as modern documentation.
The LDP is a poor quality pile of poo. Why not include the NHFs if they meet the DFSG?
And would anyone care to clarify whether these docs meet the OSD or FSF freedoms list? I don't know anybody (including muy Debian using friends) who cares much about the DFSG compared to the OSD and FSF freedoms.
For Christ's sake talk about cutting off your nose despite your face. I suppose the Debianholes of the world would pass on a life saving treatment if the drug had some sort of patent on it too. For fuck's sake it's just documentation. I think it's great that they strive for "purity" but when it boils down to something as crucial as documentation I think you have to sit back and wonder if you're pumping the neighbor's cat instead of doing your users a favor.
Well, maybe. To some extent Debian's reputation is our own worst enemy: if we interpret a licence strictly, people call us zealots, while if we treat one loosely they call us hypocrites.
I'll admit I thought for a few moments about sweeping it under the carpet for a while. On the other hand, I was pretty surprised to find out that there were some HOWTOs that I couldn't, say, modify for my local system and give to my friends, or that I couldn't change for Debian if a user reported a bug and I couldn't contact the original author (although all the HOWTOs in Debian are currently identical to the ones the LDP produces, and I'd like to keep it that way). If I was surprised as the maintainer, I wanted to let users know, too, and once that happened there would certainly be somebody who complained until doc-linux was split into free and non-free anyway.
Yeah, it'll be a good deal of work for me, but that's nothing new, and David's been working his butt off contacting authors. I think it had to happen sooner or later.
And really, while it's a shame, it isn't a disaster. If you don't object to non-free packages, 'apt-get install doc-linux-non-free-html doc-linux-non-free-text' after the split happens. If you're one of the types who doesn't want non-free anywhere near their system (which doesn't include me, as it happens), then you probably won't mind much.
You could be right, and maybe the move will turn out to be impractical after all. Time will tell. I'll try to keep things as smooth as possible.
Wake up time, buddy-o. Yes, morality and ethics are at least that lacking that this kind of crap needs to be attended to. I don't know where you live, but here in capitalism land "business ethics" teaches that a "business" is not a being, but a construction that exists only to maximize its profit. "Therefore" it's foolish to try to assign a conscience to business or otherwise expect business to act ethical or moral in any way. "Therefore" people running or working at a business should resist any foolish impulses to impose morality on their business decisions. So poison the people, cut the corners. Market forces will stop you, if you really need to be stopped.
It's just a grand philosophy, isn't it? Sloughs off responsibility perfectly and hard to argue against within their constraints. Very comforting if you are the kind of immoral bastard who usually percolates up the business hierarchy. "Correct Ethics" are hard to understand after all and require experts to even contemplate, better to leave it up to others, ie the market.
Except that you never really see ethical choices that are hard unless someone is specifically trying to justify their poor choice. As always, every restriction and hurdle you'll ever see can almost always be traced straight back to some bastard that tried to get away with something.
So yes, we need these stupid things. Especially in the US where we literally incubate and select for bastards almost exclusively.
Oh God, I've been infected with the IRC virus. Damnit.
Can you get anymore fascist and ironic?
-
Of course, any product that fails to satisfy that last criterion is neither free software by the FSF definition nor open-source software by the OSI definition. However, there are plenty of packages that claim to be "free" or "open" and in fact are not. (Consider Sun's SCSL, used for Java, or SSH's read-only licenses, used for ssh.)
In short, the question I ask myself when evaluating a piece of software is "Will this seemingly free software fuck me over in the future?" If I used Debian, I'd have an easy answer to that question, without having to check each package myself.*
*In fact, I don't use Debian, because I prefer RPM and the BSD ports as package formats, but that's another story.
I think it had to happen sooner or later.
Yet, if you let it be later, you wouldn't be having this problem:
Yeah, it'll be a good deal of work for me, but that's nothing new, and David's been working his butt off contacting authors.
This sense of absolute right and wrong, black and white, has caused you trouble. But, at the end of the day, if you're happy with your decisions, efforts, and results, then nothing I or anyone else says really means a whole hell of a lot.
The middle mind speaks!
I cordially invite you to help fix the problems you see, or shut the hell up.
;-) Not much to ask for the time I've donated. Instead, you whine that it's not good enough? I mean really. I work my ass off for *this*?
It's all very well to say "[t]he LDP is a poor quality pile of poo". We have some documents that probably deserve that fragrant description. But we also publish works good enough for O'Reilly to publish them.
My time spent in the service of the LDP is time spent for *you*, all the Linux users. Our authors don't get paid for their work, and neither does the staff. All we expect is to feel good about what we've accomplished at the end of the day, get an occasional thanks, and maybe the odd beer after a LUG meeting.
The NHF's are often very good, and in many cases better for the newbie user, their audience. The LDP is oriented more toward the system administrator and power user. That's not because we decided to be that, but because that's who is writing. I applaud their work. It isn't a competition.
Then again, there are subjects covered on the LDP that would never make it into a NHF.
Want more end-user docs? Fine, send them in. We'll publish them.
David Merrill
LDP Collection Coordinator
Because.. from RMS point of view, Linux is a kernel, and it uses a lot of GNU. Without GNU, linux wouldn't be what it is. That's why.
.but I see his point.
He does not insist on calling the *kernel* GNU/Linux. He said the whole operating system, because it's got so much of the GNU system in it, should be GNU/Linux.
I disagree.
I'v recently noticed that my console login prompt has changed (it now say Debian GNU/Linux 3.0 ...)
This if any thing servers as a strong reminder of who admins mine (and your) systems, it aint me (or you) its the people who dev apt/dpkg and the package maintainers.
So you have to be able to trust these people, that they are honest, and do what they say, they of good character etc
If any thing is found to break their Social Contract and they just ignore it, that would compramise peoples trust in them.
although ever time i login i get a message reminding me that they accept no liability. i still use debian cause i trust them.
of course this idea doesn't always hold. i dont in the slightest trust MS but i still have a windows partition (i still have one or two progs that wine dont run). i always have a huge feeling of paranoia when use windows and am online, i closed source you dont whats it doing and you dialogs poping up like 'media player has found a new codec to download' WTF i wasn't listening to music ?!!
-Trevelyan
I cordially invite you to help fix the problems you see, or shut the hell up.
FYI, I'm thinking of taking over the X, XTerm, XDCMP and font deuglification howtos, depending on how easy Docbook is to learn (I'm currently dealing with Latex, and from all indications DocBook is favourably less hellish, so it looks like a goer).
However, I reject the notion that just because something is made avaliable for free all criticism is invalid, especially constructive cricism like the above. Bug reports and suggestions for improvement are contributions. Furthermore that authors of many open source projects compare themselves favourably to proprietary ones, shouldn't other people be able to do the same and draw their own conclusions? Thanksyou for your contribution, but I'll make my own mind up, thank you very much.
The NHF's are often very good, and in many cases better for the newbie user, their audience. The LDP is oriented more toward the system administrator and power user.
The NHF also seems to have more of a security focus than the LSB, and is centainly more up to date. In that sense it appears much more applicable to administrators than the LDP.
Regardless, thankyou for your thoughtful and polite response
There is a good reason why changes to the documentation should make it back to the original authors, so they can update their documents.
What if this is not necessary, as in cases where the docs are changing in responce to distribution-specific needs? Under your proposal, simple changes like changing "/usr/local/bin" to "/usr/bin" in documentation because that's where the distribution installs a binary in their package would mean that you would have to send that change back to the original author. To make matters worse, what if the original author rejects the change?
More complex changes are often needed as well (enter the example of the Adrian Sun patches against netatalk awhile ago). Adrian's patches added functionality to netatalk and changed some original behaviour. Now, under your proposed system, additions to cover those behaviour changes and additions to the software (even if they're qualified by saying "if you use the +asun patches...blah blah blah") would have to be accepted by the original author prior to you being able to distribute the document.
To promote virtually non-editable documentation is just silly because of examples like the above. This always leads me to question why the documentation was ever released in the form that can be read on the net if the original author is so anal about changes? What's wrong with writing the document and just flat-out assigning the copyright on the document over to the LDP?
If the Debian fanatics insist on it, let them write their own docs.
This doesn't just affect Debian, it could possibly open up anyone who packages these docs to copyright infringement liability (yes, this includes RedHat and others, which I'm beginning to believe never check half of the licenses in their packages for distribution or alteration restrictions). Not speaking with my "Debian Developer" hat on here, I actually agree with Debian's stance on this. I'd rather have docs that can be modified or updated if they need to be rather than waiting on the upstream authors (who are frequently not reachable) to approve changes. I don't consider the "willy-nilly" editing situation to be a problem since anyone who distributes docs that are obviously wrong will undoubtedly shy people away from getting other docs from them. If you consider usability and even stupid things like spelling corrections (why can't most people that post things on the net spell anyway?) to be "willy nilly", then I suppose we should probably encourage authors to not write free documentation that they hope will be helpful and, instead, encourage them to publish them in books that we all have to pay for (after all, you can't modify those without asking permission either).
If you've ever been involved in a licensing audit, then you DEFINITELY read licenses on everything that you install. Trust me, you don't want to go through that at the last minute before an audit (even an internal company audit can be brutal). In that case, I'd much rather deal with Stallman than with the lawyers who breathe down your neck during the license audits :-P
Yeah.
That's why all the jpegs on the GNU website have that 'why this is not a gif' caption.
Because it looks so stupid and detracts from the message.
It's the KENEL which is Linux (tm by Linus Torvaldes), the rest of the system is GNU (except X, ....).
So you are running GNU on Linux.
I *think* this is RMS's point.
I think some of the problem occurs because Documentation is done las.
There are good reasons for this as well as bad.
But the end effect is that there is more concentration on the Source side than the doc side, and more thought placed therein.
Maybe an interim "intent of copyright" would patch this up until such time as it can properly be addressed?
I actually read the GPL before I started using Linux regularly (maybe even before I installed it at all; this was ages ago) -- I think it was when I was trying an early version of Cygwin out, and the installer popped the GPL up. I normally clicked right through the license agreements, but I read this one, because the first few lines were totally different from any license I'd seen before.
I remember being extremely amused at the cleverness of the GPL. I still am, in fact. Good hack, that.
Daniel
Hurry up and jump on the individualist bandwagon!
There have been several versions of LDP. Some comply with DFSG but some don't.
A typical copyright might say something like this: "This document may only be distributed subject to the terms and conditions set forth in the LDP License." But the "LDP License" is linked to the LDP Manifesto which does not allow modification.
It's the versions that ban modification outright that are the problem.
DFSG has no problem with giving credit to authors.
Fuck fuck fuck.
#apt-get remove slashdot_flamers
Reading Package Lists... Done
Building Dependency Tree... Done
E: Couldn't find package slashdot_flamers
Damn! Well I guess apt can't do everything...
" I don't know anybody (including muy Debian using friends) who cares much about the DFSG compared to the OSD and FSF freedoms."
Unless something has changed all 3 of these are basically the same.
By now I hope that you realise that I consider the entire point to be moot (the documentation licences will be changed or the documents in question will be moved), but am enjoying the civil discourse, and the chance to play Devil's Advocate. Thank you, and good luck on resolving the difficulties.
The middle mind speaks!
It sounds like moving to another distribution might be a good idea for you. You seem unclear about the purpose of debian, and it sounds like that purpose is not consistent with your own needs from a distribution. While many of us feel very passionate about the ideals of debian, and its quality as a distribution, I think most people would not ask you to continue using a distribution that does not meet your needs. Good luck with whatever you chose!
Why are folks getting so wired about this situation? Most geeks have entire bookshelves full of non-Free, copywritten, non-redistributable, non-updatable documentation, for which they paid in sum thousands of dollars. And they did so happily. So why the concern about the electronic equivalents?
Instead of rejecting the LDP license, I would question whether the GPL is appropriate for documentation.
The fine people who write software for us under the GPL get some return for their work. Firstly, developing software is fun. Secondly, they get recognition in the community, because relatively few people are capable of developing good software.
Documentation is different. It's a chore to write it. It doesn't bring the author much recognition, because pretty much anyone who has nothing better to do can put together some sort of documentation. So people have little incentive to write it.
Consequently, documentation is the weak point of the free software movement.
If the LDP license encourages just a few more people to write documentation, by giving them just a little more rights in the work they've done for us (and remember, under the LDP, the work is still freely copyable and distributable without payment), then I say: let's support the LDP license. "Rewriting" stuff because it's under the LDP license seems an especially unwise thing to do. I am willing to release software I write under the GPL. I am not willing to write documentation and put it under GPL, but I am willing to write documentation and release it under the LDP license.
I actually thought it was "in spite" instead of "despite". Live and learn