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."
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.
They aren't a company. They believe in Free Software specific to certain licenses, it's an ideal more than a product. They'd be hypocritical if they didn't do this.
I find it interesting that this would be modded up.
;)
"This self-important bullshit ought to stop"
You are making an assumption about the purpose of Debian. You assume that it's about providing you with a new release. It is not. Debian as a project is about producing a free software operating system. If 1/2 of that definition is not met by 2/3 of the documentation, then it should be of major concern (to at least 1/3 of the team
It's not a big deal, get back to hacking code
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.
I would have a lot more sympathy for your comments if you spent any time acknowledging that these folks have provided you with an awful lot of benefit because they're fanatics who will waste hours/days/years of their lives for the good of the free software cause.
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.
sPh
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
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
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
I can see where this is confusing. What has happened is that there have been several versions of the LDP License, and also a sample "boilerplate" license listed in our manifesto.
:-)
Some of them are Free, some are Non-Free.
We are doing our best to get as many documents licensed to suit Debian guidelines as we can. However, the LDP is not a Free project, and we do not require a Free license. We DO want to keep our documents in Debian as much as we possibly can, so I am asking the LDP authors to consider seriously a relicensing in order to do that. I'm not forcing anyone to do anything. Allegations to the contrary just show you didn't bother to read the announcement.
Now if I may be permitted a micro-rant...
I'm a volunteer just like the other LDP volunteers, and I give lots of my time trying to create and improve the documentation you all count on. I'm doing my best to deal appropriately with a difficult situation, and I'd appreciate receiving some support for that rather than endless flames and gripes over things I'm not even doing.
And Flower, that isn't directed at you.
David Merrill
LDP Collection Coordinator
Yes, I hate licensing too. In fact, that's one of the reasons that I like Debian GNU/Linux. Those folks are fanatic about licensing issues so that I don't have to be. This LDP thing is actually a good example of this. There is no way that any of the LDP authors are going to come after Debian. Especially since Debian itself isn't breaking the rules set forth in the LDP. They are moving the documentation into non-free because they want to alert potential documentation developers that you can't change these documents and distribute the changes without changing the name of the document. That's a pretty tiny nit to pick, but to them it's important.
Which means that if I limit myself to the main part of the Debian distribution I can rest assured that I can happily change the source code to anything I see and still distribute those changes (I might be required to distribute source as well, but that's another story).
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."
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.
Oh joy, another SlashDot poster who didn't bother to read the article. Why am I not surprised?
This change (moving non-free LDP documents to the non-free tree of Debian) is happening at *my* request, not Debian's. Regardless of your feelings on Debian's guidelines, I don't see how you can fault them for following their own guidelines.
There is no question whatsoever that the LDP documents in question violate the Debian Free Software Guidelines. And the DFSG apply to the *entire* distribution, not just software, despite the title.
David Merrill
LDP Collection Coordinator
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
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).
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.
We're talking about 412 documents, roughly. Twelve of them are complete books (400-600 pages), some published by O'Reilly and other publishers. It's a *hell* of a lot of documentation.
In printed form, it would take up about 1.5 to 2 feet of shelf space, maybe more.
David Merrill
LDP Collection Coordinator