Slashdot Mirror
Debian GNU/Linux to Declare GNU GFDL non-Free?
Syntaxis writes "There's some considerable argy-bargy in progress over whether or not GNU's own
GFDL
is a Free documentation license at all. At issue are "invariant sections" which cannot be removed from derivative works. Check out the thread culminating in the proposed motion to take action. The current consensus on Debian-legal does indeed appear to be that one of the FSF's own licenses is non-Free under the terms of the Debian Free Software Guidelines! Well, documentation for GPLed projects countermanding the very freedoms embodied in the GPL certainly seems insane to me."
how did this happen? a slip in the legal department?
Checking out my form of escapism.
RMS and Darth Stallius are the same person after all?
The GPL can't be modified, yet it is stuck into just about every free package in Debian. If it could be changed, then the software's license could be altered. Bill Gates whould just have to "embrace and extend" the GPL to gain whatever control he wished. We NEED non-free pieces to protect the FREEness of the software. Ironic no?
Also the book "Steal this book" should be banned for false advertising.
I think Debian take all this licencing stuff far too seriously. They have some insane clause about the kind of software they can include in their distros. Personally, I think they should include anything that they are legally allowed to.
Get your own free personal location tracker
Stick to public domain. GPL is no more free than Microsoft, just each end an extreme. Microsoft, no source, no tampering, no nothing. GPL, Always source, no matter what. Sure it works for some, I have a few projects I own that are GPL, incidentally because I originally unknowingly GPL'd them, and a few now that are public domain. I prefer public domain, there is little to no worries at all on it. I'm even more free in the choice because I could one day take works I put into public domain and use them in a closed source application, such as for consulting work. People will benefit from the source I had originally made, and I benefit in the fact I can use the work in closed environments.
..There's a-dooin's a-transpirin'
Upon reading the post, however, what I see is a bean counter mentality that can really be dangerous to open source projects as a whole. I shudder at the thought of hundreds of package maintainers being contacted to deal with this "license issue", which is really a non-issue to anyone with some common sense. This time would better be spent working on real problems -- it's not like Debian has none of those ...
There is a diffrence between documentation and software, a good documentation license need not
be good for software, and vice versa.
So I think the GNU documentation license is ok for
documentation, and should be allowed for
documentation, but NOT for software.
Debian isn't about to remove all documentation licensed under GFDL, only the documentation that takes advantage of the invariant sections (or some other non-modifiable features of GFDL). Unfortunately this includes most of the GNU project documentation since the GNU project has marked the usual GNU propaganda blurbs invariant.
What's strange is that according to GFDL the invariant sections must not be about the actual subject of the documentation. Instead must be "secondary sections", as described in the GFDL:
Frankly, it seems to me that the GNU project would have added the invariant sections only force their political statements to be carried everywhere along the documentation. Many people have pondered that if they request the operating system to be called GNU/Linux, why don't they add a clause in their license to demand that. Well, maybe they have started moving towards that direction.
As I understood it, the license allowed for invariant sections so that you can include "Originally written by..." at the top and then prevent anyone from changing it; I've always intended to distribute laboratory manuals under this license, and I can think of some other things I might want to make invariant, primary data for instance. In source, you might conceivably use such a clause to require someone to include a Trojan (or, gasp, an unfree supplementary component!), but since it is a document we're talking about, I do not see the problem. If I decide to make false or misleading text invariant, why use my document (or fork of a document) at all?
If I understand correctly, absolutely nothing prevents you from adding entire additional sections to the document - including, if necesarry, screaming tirades against sections you were forced to include.
Let me put it another way - I release the documentation for my software under this license. What invariant text could I possibly add that is genuinely going to interfere with someone's free speech?
The good and new comes from no quarter where it is looked for, and is always something different from what is expected.
And yet the GFDL is the perfect illustration of that analogy; upside down! That documentation is very free (beer), but specificaly prohibits modification of the invariant sections which is limiting speech.
Sorry, Richard, can't have the cake and eat it too. You figure it's evil for someone to publish code not wanting someone else to fiddle in it, but you figure that as long as you feel it's important to you, documentation can be so protected?
-- MG
I'm not a GPL zealot by any means.. however..
TO start with, both Microsoft's code, and, say, RMS, are protected by copyright laws. In that, sure, they are the same.
Microsoft, however, makes you agree to a bunch of additional terms above and beyond the protections it would be provided under just copyright law. Stuff like "no reverse engineering" "No benchmarks" "not transferrable to another system" etcetera. You get the idea.
RMS code, released under the GPL, does NOT require you to accept ANY license at all. The GPL is NOT a use license.
You are free to do anything with the code that standard copyright laws allowed.
IN ADDITION to that, you can choose to accept the terms of the GPL, which grants you additional rights ABOVE and BEYOND what copyright alone allows you to do. You are still free to contact the copyright holder and request other licensing as well.
So it all really depends on what you mean by freedom. I agree, real freedom would be simply releasing it into the public domain, where anyone can do anything at all with it. The GPL is just pushing an agenda.
The point is that I can't GPL only part of my program file, while six lines remain immutable.
The GPL allows you to use non-free libraries. Place those six lines in foo.c, GPL foo.h, and like foo.o to your final binary. Don't distribute foo.c with the rest of your app.
Actually, this isn't quite the same thing as the doc problem, because a forker can cut out those lines and you can't call the entire package GPL.
You can't judge a book by the way it wears its hair.
A *real* troll talks about such things like the censorware.org project (Way to fuck things up, Michael). Or how Doom was the cause of the Columbine shootings, and how John Carmack should have been arrested for it. (It's true, he *should*)
You obviously have no clue as to what is being discussed here.
While all Debian packages are available in source form so that you may compile them uniquely for your system if you wish, Debian is a binary distribution.
STFU and RTFM.
If I have a project I"ve started, and it's GPLd, and you submit me a little diff, a bugfix, say...
you do not, i'm afraid, automatically become a co-author.
Even if you submit a whole subsection to a peice of code..... the language you submitted it to me really DOES matter. IF you gave me a patch, and said "here, if you want ot include this in the project". You just GAVE it to me... you just assumed I was going to publicly release it in the GPL version. I still retain copyright, even if I include the code you gave me.
Just because the project is GPL does not *necessarily* mean that all changes submitted by others grants them co-authorship.
For at least half of the talk, he spoke regarding the history of copyright and was absolutely boring at all hell (perhaps it's because I only have Lessig's Free Culture talk to compare to).
For the second half of the talk, he began to outline how he thinks the copyright office should work (he admits this isn't a perfect system, but he thinks this is how it should be). Essentially, he narrowed down all intellectual works into three catagories:
- Functional
- Biographical
- Aesthetic
Now, I believe there are some major holes in this, but I brought up the point that software licenses surely are functional works within society and therefore the GPL license itself (the actual document that you include with your software) should be free as in speech (it currently disallows derivative works).These are works that serve some sort of functional use within society. This includes text books, manuals, and software. These works should be free as in speech.
These are works that are compliations of a particular authors opinions. RMS thought these could go either way. Maybe they could have a limited period of monopolistic power (of course no longer than 2 years).
These are works that only have aesthetic value (in other words, they are the shiny things of the world). Stallman stated that a copyright system should allow a 2-3 year monopoly on such works (this means the RIAA could still do all it does but that you'd be allow to trade songs that were 3+ years old).
Stallman had no answer for this and instead spent 15 minutes explaining to me why using the term "Intellectual Property" meant that I couldn't even begin to understand the issues at hand.
I've always been a defender of Stallman but I lost an awful lot of respect for him that night. I fully support Debian in this matter.
int func(int a);
func((b += 3, b));
But hey, who needs freedoms, let's just be "pragmatic", whatever that is supposed to mean.
that the invariant sections can simply be a short history of the document or the like. For example, you might want to include a section that says "this document was written by so-and-so with the help of so-and-so; it went through revisions x, y, z; if you like this document, send pizza to this address, etc.". The invariant section cannot deal with the actual subject of the document (i.e. you cannot mark a chapter as invariant). This doesn't sound that bad to me.
___
If you think big enough, you'll never have to do it.
If I read the GFDL correctly an Invariant Section simply concerns it self with secondary sections. Secondary sections being sections which contains information about authors, publishers and so on. They are not allowed to contain content regarding the overall subject.
To me this seems fair. Invariant sections ensures that all people involved in the creation of this document is properly credited. When writing free documents all you have is the credit and the Debian people want to take that away from you. I must have misunderstood something, this can't be right. If it is then Debian just became the bad guys. When we're developing free software / doucuments / whatever the only thing we have is our name. We don't expect to get paid, but most of us would like the credit.
I'm sure I misread the GFDL, if not I didn't I'm really disappointed with Debian.
As I see it, the greatest thing about the Debian project is the fact that they don't subscribe to the typical herd mentality so often seen in the open-source community.
I've seen many, many Debian developers using "GNU/Linux" to describe the operating system, which does give credit where credit is due.
However, the GNU project's goals often frighten me (inasmuch as I give a shit), and it's nice to see that someone in the community is willing to point out their mistakes.
Many have pointed out that you could put the content of an entire work in an "invariant" section of a GFDL-licensed document. I believe there may be certain rules regarding the proportion of invariant sections to non-invariant sections, but defeating this is akin to defeating the Slashdot lameness filters: a definite time-waster, but not impossible.
The GNU Project is shady. Make no mistake about it: The GPL restricts choice as much as an NDA would.
I often wonder how many successful works the GNU Project could claim if it weren't for the restrictions inherent in the GPL. One oft-cited (but quite relevant) example is GCC: stagnation left many unsatisfied, so EGCS was started, blah, blah, blah. Basically GNU took (with permission) the work of those who had made EGCS a much better compiler, and renamed it GCC.
To contribute to GCC, in fact, it is not enough that you GPL your code and give a license to the GNU Project. No, you have to ASSIGN COPYRIGHT of the code to GNU, basically saying that the code is no longer yours, and that you would no longer have the right to take code from an existing work (such as a commercial compiler which you wrote) and contribute it to GCC, because you would no longer own the original code due to copyright violation.
Does this remind anyone of recording companies requiring artists to hand over their original works?
Everything done in a GNU project benefits the FSF (at the very least, with added prestige) -- they can claim that they, and they alone, own the code. This includes the right to, if they chose, hire coders to develop the HURD into a useable OS kernel (refer to my sig here), and release it under a closed-source license. Or, to make major improvements to GCC and sell it commercially under a non-GPL license.
If Walter Bright decided to allow the FSF to use major portions of his C++ compiler, which he sells commercially (and includes, I believe, much better support for C++ templates than GCC), he would have to assign copyright of his code to the FSF, therefore preventing him from using it in releases of his commercial compiler in the future.
The FSF is brain-dead, folks, and kudos to Debian folks for having the cojones to point out one of the more obviously stupid flaws in a GNU license.
(Many may note the fact that I focus a bit on compiler issues here. I have followed, to some extent, the GCC development lists, and from what I have seen, it can be a pain in the ass to contribute to GCC. Apple has many improvements to the compiler in their internal tree, and I often wonder if more of those improvements would have been rolled back into GCC by now if not for the hoops they have to jump through in order to get those changes submitted.
I've seen people make feature suggestions on the list which the Apple guys say they've already done and tested internally. The response is often, "We've done this, but we weren't sure if anyone else would find it useful. We'll look into getting permission to release it." It seems obvious that getting permission to hand over copyright would make that process a little harder.
Why do I focus on compiler issues so much? Various reasons... quality of generated code on Intel vs. other architectures, KDE slowness due to C++ linkages, blah blah blah. The compiler is key to getting code to run quickly on modern CPUs, as anyone pushing a non-Intel architecture would do well to remember.)
Don't trust the FSF. Appreciate their work, but don't hand over your firstborn. They can do whatever they want, including rewrite the GPL to state that any GPL'd code may be sold commercially by the FSF without providing source code.
FSF says free the source. I say free the developer.
Somebody get that guy an ambulance!
The two major categories of free software license are copyleft and non-copyleft. Copyleft licenses such as the GNU GPL insist that modified versions of the program must be free software as well. Non-copyleft licenses do not insist on this. We recommend copyleft, because it protects freedom for all users, but non-copylefted software can still be free software, and useful to the free software community.
There are many variants of simple copyleft free software licenses, including the GPL license, the Lesser GPL license, and the GFLD license. Most of them are equivalent except for details of wording, but the license used for GFDL has a special problem: the ``obnoxious GFLD Invariant Sectioons clause''.
Initially the obnoxious Invariant Sections clause was used only in the GNU Documentation. That did not cause any particular problem, because including one section in a technical docunent is not a great practical difficulty.
If other developers who used GFDL-like licenses had copied the GFDL invariant sections clause verbatim--then they would not have made the problem any bigger.
But, as you might expect, other developers did not copy the clause verbatim. They changed it, replacing ``GNU'' with their own sections or their own names. The result is a plethora of licenses, requiring a plethora of different sections.
When people put many such documentation together in an operating system, the result is a serious problem. Imagine if a software system required 75 different sections, each one naming a different author or group of authors.
This might seem like extrapolation ad absurdum, but it is actual fact. NetBSD comes with a long list of different sentences, required by the various licenses for parts of the system. In a 1997 version of NetBSD, I counted 75 of these sentences. I would not be surprised if the list has grown by now.
To address this problem, in my ``spare time'' I talk with developers who have used GFDL-style licenses, asking them if they would please remove the invariant sections clause. Around 1996 I spoke with the developers of Wikipedia about this, and they decided to remove the advertising clause from all of their own code.
Unfortunately, this does not eliminate the legacy of the Invariant Sections clause: similar clauses are still present in the licenses of many documents which are not part of GNU. These changes in licenses has no effect on the other packages which imitated the old GFDL license; only the developers who made them can change them.
But if they followed Debian's lead before, maybe Debian's change in policy will convince some of them to change. It's worth asking.
So if you have a favorite package which still uses the GFDL license with the Invariant Sections clause, please ask the maintainer to look at this post, and consider making the change.
And if you want to release a document as copylefted free content, please don't use the Invariant Sections clause.
You can also help spread awareness of the issue by not using the term ``GFDL-style'', and not saying ``the GFDL license'' which implies there is only one. You see, when people refer to all copyleft free doc licenses as ``GFDL-style licenses'', some new free software developer who wants to use a copyleft free doc license might take for granted that the place to get it is from GFDL. He or she might copy the license with the invariant sections clause, not by specific intention, just by chance.
If you would like to cite one specific example of a copyleft license, and you have no particular preference, please pick an example which has no particular problem. For instance, if you talk about ``Creative Commons style licenses'', you will encourage people to copy the license from CC, which avoids the advertising clause for certain, rather than take a risk by randomly chosing the GFDL license.
Here is the definition of an invariant section. It is VERY discusting what the debian people wan't to do.
Basicly the debian developers want the right to steal your GFLD'd documents and strip you out of the credits/biblography so they can claim THEY wrote it.
Actually, now that I've re-read the license, I see that it makes seperate provisos for most of the invariant sections I would expect to want to include; authors, acknowledgements and suchnot.
Nonetheless, the primary data in a methods paper is something I would wish to require be included in an invariant form; if you are going to modify the method and claim an improvement, you should be required to include the primary data generated by my method which you have altered. I'm sure there are other examples of sundry text that some author might wish to require.
The good and new comes from no quarter where it is looked for, and is always something different from what is expected.
... write a program which did nothing more than display the contents of this license (text of license included - with necessary sections unaltered - in the program, rather than loaded from file), then released said program under the GPL, would others be able to modify the license in subsequent releases/forks of said program or would the GPL be overruled?
Who cares what a distro does? I don't even use Debian, how is this affecting me. Why should I care?(I'm really asking a question, not trolling)
I've been a wikipedia user for 3/4's of a year now, and I know for a fact that they dont use the invariant sections.
t e_request_for_permission
See: http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Boilerpla
-- -- --
Help my mini cause: My journal
I don't think you understand. It's not about the money.
I wouldn't use Windows even if it was free. In fact, I wouldn't even use it if you paid me to.
This is just another attempt to undermine licenses that are protective of honesty and freedom.
Now who'd want to do this? Do you need more than one guess?
invariant sections that are secondary and optional only provide a means of protecting against MS rewritting who created the Free Software Foundation and such....
If you do not like a license then pick another or create your own and then deal with the choices others make about it.
In short, let Debian create their own version and RMS to point out the holes while MS finds and abuses the holes...
So long as they don't become "one program."
You'd have to dynamically link the two. No static linking. GPL works can use proprietary libs, they just can't buser used by proprietary programs as libs.
You can't judge a book by the way it wears its hair.
Stick to public domain. GPL is no more free than Microsoft, just each end an extreme. Microsoft, no source, no tampering, no nothing. GPL, Always source, no matter what. Sure it works for some, I have a few projects I own that are GPL, incidentally because I originally unknowingly GPL'd them, and a few now that are public domain. I prefer public domain, there is little to no worries at all on it. I'm even more free in the choice because I could one day take works I put into public domain and use them in a closed source application, such as for consulting work. People will benefit from the source I had originally made, and I benefit in the fact I can use the work in closed environments.
The problem here isn't the GPL. You just don't understand it right.
If you put a project under the GPL, you can still use your own code in a closed project. Since you own the copyright, you can release the code under multiple copyrights. Releasing it under the GPL is actually better because it means no one else can use your code in a closed product.
Stick to public domain. GPL is no more free than Microsoft, just each end an extreme.
This really makes me wonder if you're trolling. This statement is just silly. With MS software you have the rights granted to you by copyright law, but they are restriced by a license. With GPL'ed software you get the rights granted to you by copyright law, plus additional rights are granted to you is you agree to the GPL. The GPL does not attempt to remove any of the rights granted by copyright, it actually gives you more. MS licences try to remove rights granted to you by copyright while not giving you any more.(BTW, this makes the GPL perhaps the most legally binding of software licences.) This is like saying that $1,000,000,000 is no better than $.01 because they're different ends of an extreme. It's nonsense. It's like saying facism is no different than democracy because they're both forms of government.
Life is too short to proofread.
The GPL was written for code, and it is very good for code.
If you've ever read interviews with RMS where he has been asked about copyright on things like music and books, he's usually very cagey. He tends to end up saying that there are interesting possibilities and difficult questions, but he's concerned with software, which is his area of expertise.
Software documentation is sort of software, and sort of literature. Writers of literature tend to be concerned about the integrity of their works more than writers of software, who usually expect their work to be enhanced and improved over the years, whether by themselves or by other people.
The GFDL is an attempt to manage the compromise between the freedom of software users to distribute derived works, and the need for literature writers to preserve the integrity of their works.
This compromise, of course is incompatible with the strict DFSG-type rights regarding software, and when a package contains code and documentation, the same requirements are applied to Debian by both.
I feel the answer is for Debian to relax the DFSG as they apply to non-program code. That's not simple to do, however. This is a fairly new problem, as it only comes from trying to make complete working distributions with professional quality documentation under GPL-like conditions, and it's going to take probably a few years to totally work it out.
I don't think anyone involved in this is insane.
If I ever maintain a GFDL document I'll probably use them to explain how Debian developers are the secret masters of the world, who have been guiding human evolution for millions of years so that one day we may finally be free of the hostile K'reth who dwell under the sea.
The problem, as summarized and debated in the linked thread (which you should all GO READ) is that you cannot take even a small part out of a GFDL document without including all the invariant sections, even if doing so would be pointless and irrelevant. Imagine, for example, writing an article in which you wanted to quote large portions of a GNU manual--so much so that it fell outside the category of "fair use." You couldn't do so under GFDL without including the political views of the GNU Project espoused at the beginning of every GNU manual. (I.e. "Free Software Needs Free Documentation.") It is this that makes the GFDL non-free by the terms of the Debian Free Software Guidelines. If invariant sections or front/back matter were removable it would go "a long way" to making it DFSG-free.
On the other hand, nothing in the core free software philosophy says that using copyright to protect political views and other things is in-and-of-itself bad. Remember, the reason that the crusade for free software was begun is this: Instant copying via computers means that it is now more beneficial to society to exercise their inherent right to copy, than it is to restrict that right to promote innovation through monopoly. What a mouthful. :)
Nothing about the Free Software philosophy says that every single thing ever written should be freely redistributable. If I write a political essay you better believe that I'm copyrighting it so no one else can change it. I don't have a problem with them distributing it gratis or for a fee, but they sure better not change my words around. That is what copyright is good for, and what the "Invariant Sections" in the GFDL is designed to allow.
For example, say I write a math text. In the introduction, I state my views on the current state of mathematics education and my proposed solutions, some of which are embodied in the book. I certainly don't want anyone changing that and passing it off as my authorship. To make my book properly fit the "Free" philosophy, I should allow 2 things:
Furthermore, I should be able to do the following and maintain harmony with the "free" philosophy:
It is clear that while the GFDL is not up to par with the "Free" philosophy, the DFSG prohibits authors from exercising their right to protect their personal views and speech from modification. This right--to protect your personal views and expression (which source code is not, by the way)--is just as important to free speech as the freedoms outlined in the GPL.
In summary, both the GFDL and the DFSG have problems maintaining harmony with the "Free" philosophy as it should be applied to documentation. I think the GFDL has a fundamental problem with not allowing "Invariant Sections" to be ommitted, and the DFSG has a problem by not allowing an author to preserve personal views. The second problem likely comes from applying a software definition (the DFSG) to documentation. Source code is not the same thing as other writings, and the DFSG does not currently make a distinction.
Hopefully both parties here will realize what changes need to be made--and make them.
Take care,
--
Christian Sieber
This may be an appropriate time to write something that has brewing within the recesses of my mind for years... The GPL is about the Freedom From things. Freedom from having someone use the programs in something that is not "free'.
The BSD license is about the Freedom TO do something. Take this code & have a nice day.
"Freedom from" is not freedom, it is protection. It is a good thing[TM]. It really is. Our environment dictates such actions sometimes, but really, to call it free software is as accurate as the Iraqi Information Minister's various speechs. It is twisting of a good word and confusing it.
Remember, that I still claim it is a good thing before modding me.
Great, now linux is dying just like bsd. I guess I will format my linux partition with ntfs now and use WindowsXP exclusively.
They are not complaining because the software license cannot be altered. The complaint is that the *content* cannot be altered (under certain circumstances). In particular, one cannot excerpt documentation covered by the offending provisions to use in summaries, etc. This is actually more restrictive than most commercial copyrights, which specifically allow for excerpts in "fair use."
If they applied the same terms to the GPL that they apply to the documentation license, modified code would have to include the *complete* original source code in original form in the *same* file (not in a different file and definitely not in a separate directory). Contrast that with what Debian normally does: they put the modified code in one place, the original code in a different place, and the diff file as well.
Traditionally, the important part is to make sure that the original code and the license are available. This license would mandate that the code be *integrated*. An example of what can happen:
---begin first file---
vi has a steep learning curve but is very powerful and works on almost any *nix system.
emacs is very flexible, allowing users to add elisp snippets that modify behavior in small or large ways.
---end first file; begin second file---
vi has a steep learning curve but is very powerful and works on almost any *nix system.
Original file said:
vi has a steep learning curve but is very powerful and works on almost any *nix system.
emacs is very flexible, allowing users to add elisp snippets that modify behavior in small or large ways.
---end second file---
Note that the second file has to include the entire section about emacs, even though its discussion might be limited to vi (where the first might have been contrasting vi and emacs). One can derive even more annoying cases when creating GUI front ends to multi-featured command line programs. Say you made a GUI frontend for DVD burning for a program that could do both CD and DVD burning. If the documentation used the offending provisions in the GFDL, one would have to discuss CD burning in a program that does not support it.
This is not to say that there is nothing good that can be said about the GFDL. It is trying to avoid the problem of people misquoting others. Unfortunately, IMO, it goes too far and renders documentation using it considerably less than freely reusable. Particularly in its limitations on excerpting, which can be an important tool.
The one that basicly said "We 0wZ j00"? Well, they're not using every power that was given under that EULA. Just as the people using the GFDL mostly aren't using the invariant clause.
You seem to assume that nobody would abuse the licencing at some point in the future. Personally I would rather see it taken care of up front rather than wait around for it to turn around and bite us. Whatever happened to GPL 1.0? Should we never have gone to 2.0? Should we stop working on 3.0 because 2.0 "isn't being abused at the moment"?
Let's face it, once you've released something under an OSS licence, it's out there. So if somebody found a hole in the licencing, all information released under that licence (code, documentation) is compromised. You can't pull any of the tricks a closed-source software can like withdrawing the product from market, refuse to give out new licences and so on. That's not a non-issue to the OSS movement.
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Some of GNU documentation that was, for a long time included in Debian had the copyright notice allowing distribution but no moficiation. Such is the case with essays by Richard Stallman, for example.
Other documents, even some technical documents, had the same copyright status.
Documents aren't code. The FDL allows a written work (especially a functional work) to be treated like code, but adds invariant sections for a number or reasons. Everything from a dedicatiom, explanation or even a bit of "art" can be used with the FDL.
It may indeed be true that the FDL does not comply with Debian Social Contract guidelines, but those guidelines applied to software and not documentation AFAIK.
Perhaps an ammendment should be made to the Debian Social Contract to make this distinction?
- Serge Wroclawski
I see PHP.net as what would be a good use of invariant sections. The main documentation is "official" and unable to be changed by users, but the users can attache annotations to expand on or correct the main text. I don't think they use the license this way, but I could see it applying to a situation like that.
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
attache heh. I need more caffiene. Or Peeps. Or chocolate or something. mmmmm Theobromine.
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
Mac OS X is a freaking slut! It'll do anything it can get its hands on.
File sharing? Sure -- straight NFS with Unix hosts; kinky SMB with Windows; AppleShare AFP with other Macs, even old ones. It'll even play with weird new tricks like WebDAV, and it can mount an FTP server as easily as mounting a local disk.
Executables? No problem. Trick it out with the right gender-bender, and it'll run Windows programs. Lots of Linux and Unix software just takes a recompile and a little teasing -- those perverts at Fink specialize in fitting Debian parts into OS X ports.
And then there's all the perverted things it'll do in emulation ...
Debian is nothing but gnu/Stallman's army of Gnu/trolls. Why do you think they're the only major distro that actually puts gnu/ in front of Linux? All other distros call it by it's real name, LINUX!
As if there isn't any GNU in Redhat, Gentoo, or any other distro. NOT TRUE! Linux is ONLY the kernel, and would be USELESS by itself.
Debian IS unique. Debian "stable", while "20 (internet) minutes into the past" (to miss quote Max Headroom), is usually quite stable. If you can't stand life on the bleeding edge, this is the only distro for you. (If you can figure out how to install it). Debian DOES take the "free" (as in 'libre') aspect quite to heart (maybe too much), but they DO have links to mirrors of 'contrib' and 'non-free' for those that take a more 'liberal' view. Just because Debian is the Distro that RMS uses doesn't mean that Debian is a toady of RMS (I don't think he is a registered Debian developer with voting privilages).
I am NOT flaming Gentoo here, but you better be able to take care of yourself if you use it because you WILL be on the bleeding edge. I pick my distros based on technical reasons, which is why I use Debian. I just try to tune out the political crap.
If the GFDL's Invariant Sections could be removed, then they would be fine with me. I don't feel any urge to modify them.
You can only apply a GPL-like license to something on which you hold the copyright.
When you GPL that program, you're saying "I, the author, hereby give you permission to [...] as long as you [...]"; if parts of the program aren't your property, that permission isn't yours to give, so it's meaningless.
(Counter-example: If you gave me permission to distribute copies of Windows, and I did, I'd be breaking the law, because Microsoft own Windows and you don't. If *Microsoft* gave me permission to distribute copies of Windows, I'd be able to do so legally.)
If you want true Free, then you'll go BSD. You can steal it and even CHANGE THE LICENSE. It is the true free software and not as nazi as the FSF.
This development makes it seem like Debian is about to become a BSD distro. If that's the case why'd they go GNU in the first place?
My point exactly. If I had originally created Application X and licensed it under the GPL, accepted patches from people who understood the application was GPL, then I can no longer close source my application.
You can, actually, and many projects have done exactly that (Although usually they just change the license, rather than close the source). You simply need the consent of everybody who can make a legit claim to part of the source. Of course, gathering up all that approval isn't always easy. See, for example, the rather large Mozilla Relicensing FAQ
What you can't do is retroactively close the source of an app. So while you could take Application X, currently under the GPL, and make future versions closed, the GPL'd versions wouldn't be covered. This allows other people to continue working on the GPL version.
Mark this day in your calendars, everybody. Someone's saying that Debian takes licences more seriously than the FSF? BTW, you did understand that the F in GFDL stood for Free, right? That's not a word that can be used lightly, you know.
Sure I'm paranoid, but am I paranoid enough?
On this particular subject I would add that Rumsfeld and the rest of the white house 'hawks' should be tried for treason for providing chemical and biological weapons to Iraq in the first place and helping the Ba'ath party (headed by Saddam) to gain power.
But I see your point: the invariant section may be open to abuse. However, if someone tried to pull that off, this would obviously not go over well with the community, so the author would face a lot of pressure to remove the offending section.
___
If you think big enough, you'll never have to do it.
If you put stuff into the public domain, without a warranty disclaimer, you could be liable. This is why the BSD license is nice... it is basically just a warranty disclaimer; but for all other purposes, it is public domain.
When I finished my MSc last year, I had to publish my thesis, and sourcecode. The university instructued us that the thesis had to claim them as the copyright owners, as they had a claim over our code and report. The lecturers were aware that we would maybe want to contest this, and noted that we'd probably have a fair point as we had never signed away our IP rights.. yet in order to be accepted our reports MUST contain the copyright info as stated, unless a alternative was agreed. I got my course director to accept the FDL as a license on my work in which I claimed the copyright, and I published my source code as an invariant section. As no other license/copyright info appeared on my sourcecode either printed or on disk, I essentially made them unable to claim ownership of it and make modifications.
Now I don't have any objections to the GPL or freedom over sourcecode in principle, I just didn't want them to claim ownership and rights over it.
So I was thankful that the invariant clause of the FDL allowed me to restrict the published sourcecode.
My take on this may be wrong, IANAL, but seemed to be the case, hence why I did it.
Failure to be convertable to a GPL license doesn't imply non-free.
Free nintendo for everybody!
.. can you call a license the GPL if it is not the GPL? Can you call a book "War and Peace" if it is in fact NOT the same book?
But seriously, wanting to change the license is kindof a logically self-defeating argument. This is more of a "trademark" issue
Would you want to download a software that claims to be GPL when it is in fact Microsoft-EULA software?
I think it's perfectly reasonable that a license not allow derivative works. I think it's also perfectly reasonable (if not a beauracratic morass) to allow for different CLASSES of copyrighted works. I'm not interested in "improving" an MP3 I download, but I would like to get rid of an annoying bug in software and share it with others. Etc.
These sections become permanently attached to the manual. Not being allowed to change them isn't a big problem. Not being allowed to remove them is a problem because it puts an onerous condition on the rest of the manual. For example, it makes it practically impossible to extract a page or two from one manual for use in another -- you have to copy various essays and rants as well.
any works completely of your creation can be used in any way you like
Except unless programs completely of your creation use works of others as data *cough*DeCSS*cough*AEBPR*cough*. That's a potential DMCA violation in those countries that have adopted it.
Will I retire or break 10K?
Well, I have tried several distroes (RedHat, Slackware and Debian) and my favorite is Red Hat and Slack as well (a little). Debian is a mess.
Here are the relevant sections of the GFDL:
"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."
Note the explicit mention of political position. Gah. IMHO software documentation is not the place for this. That's what websites are for. Documentation describes the software. Agendas can be handled elsewhere.
"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."
What if I want to take over maintaining a good piece of software, and some wacko ideas I don't want to be associated with are stuck in the documentation and cannot be removed? I'll have to start from scratch, or abandon the project to die. Who does that help?
The only thing I can see being worth putting in an invariant section is notice of authorship, to preserve the credit due previous authors. Also put strict restrictions on what can be in a valid authors section.
"The "Cover Texts" are certain short passages of text that are listed, as Front-Cover Texts or Back-Cover Texts, in the notice that says that the Document is released under this License. A Front-Cover Text may be at most 5 words, and a Back-Cover Text may be at most 25 words."
Again, what if there is something wildly inappropriate in these, such as the Back-Cover Text containing racist words or cuss words, that I don't want to be associated with?
Don't do politics in Documentation! History is one thing, but when was history ever set in stone? Documentation serves the purpose of preservation of information. I see no reason not to make the use of it as easy as possible. No invariant sections except to preserve credit for work.
I can't made a modification to GCC and distribute it seperately (at least, not usably), but I certainly have the ability to write a criticism, retort, or addendum to a book and distribute that seperately.
I don't see the difference. A diff file for source code is just as useable as a bunch of annotations to a book.
I have no idea what this term means. Is it in the American slang dictionary? Does linux lead to using gibberish?
Unfortunately for that plan, invariant sections have to be "Secondary Sections", which are not about the subject matter of the document. You could, however, use an invariant section to tell readers where the official version of the primary data can be found (under your control), and to advise the reader to be extremely suspicious of claims that misrepresent the primary data.
Actually, I suspect that it's not useful to require the document to contain the original data; if people change the method due to lab conditions (they have different machines, different supplies in stock, etc), your data becomes irrelevant. They'll want to provide the data that people replicating the procedure with their equipment can be expected to get, not the data which could be replicated with supplies they don't have.
So you keep the invariant sections, and right after them you put in your own section that says to ignore the last section? As an end user, I don't want to hear developers' bickerings. Few people RTFM as it is, and even fewer when TFM is filled with contradictions.
boldly going forward, 'cause we can't find reverse
To: <Paul Programmer> paul@fooware.org
We're happy to inform you that your FooWare package will be included in the next release of the Debian distribution. A lot of users seem to love the software, and they also have very nice things to say about the high-quality documenation you wrote for it!
From: zealot@debian.org
To: <Paul Programmer> paul@fooware.org
Sorry to bother you, but a recent audit shows that the GFDL-licensed documentation for FooWare contains an invariant section reading Dedicated to the memory of my mother. This is a problem, because your thoughtless act takes away the freedom of other people to change this part of the documentation, As of the next release, the Debian distribution will no longer include any GFDL-licensed documents that contain invariant sections. Please change your licenseing.
From: <Paul Programmer> paul@fooware.org
To: zealot@debian.org
No, sorry, I refuse to change the licensing of the manual.
From <Edna Enduser> edna@aol.com
To: <Paul Programmer> paul@fooware.org
Wow, I'm really blown away by the wonderful quality of your FooWare package. The only thing is, it really needs some documentation. Could you please think about writing some? I use the Debian distribution, and a lot of the other software in it has good documentation. Maybe you should emulate those other programmers. You know, the best software in the world doesn't help us users unless it has good documentation.
Find free books.
" This is the stuff of which nasty flamewars and misspelled Slashdot
headlines are made... "
right on target.
In the US, you are not free to buy slaves or even to sell yourself as a slave to someone else. Does this mean those in the US are less free than people in a country where you can buy slaves or sell yourself as a slave.
"If you are so free, why don't yopu just sell yourself to me as a slave then? Oh, you are not free to? How cn you claim to be free then?"
That is a bit much is it not?
A Nony Mouse
First, they started to throw out LaTeX, because the LPPL has a clause that says "you are allowed to take our code and change it, but then you must rename the package, since in LaTeX documents package names are part of the API and consistency is needed for document exchange." The invariance clause of the GFDL is very similar in nature, both accept that documents have other aspects than software packages.
Now, they must only understand that they have to throw out TeX as well. After all, the same restriction is on TeX the program (the code is factually frozen and may only be changed under an other name), Metafont, and the associated CM fonts. But suddenly, the license zealonts find lots of obscure reasons why these programs and fonts are supposed to be in the public domain.
Debian, be more consistent: Throw out LaTeX, throw out GNU project documents, and throw out TeX -- one of the first free software packages that was created as a collaborative effort! Go, forward!
Joachim
People don't write Manifestos any more -- what's going on in this world? [Frank Zappa]
Can you call a book "War and Peace" if it is in fact NOT the same book?
Actually, I think you could write your own book and call it War and Peace.
A Nony Mouse
Can you call a kernel Linux if it is not the Linux kernel (being, say, a vendor-supplied kernel instead)?
I can't actually find any evidence that the FSF (or anyone) has a trademark on "the GPL" or "General Public License", so MicroSoft could, in fact, legally offer software "under the GPL" where the GPL was, in fact, a standard MicroSoft EULA, so long as it wasn't based on the GNU GPL.
The other issue is people changing the license in the distribution of some software. Someone could modify the file COPYING in a package to give the distributor more rights or less responsibilities. Of course, it isn't the copyright on the GPL that prevents this, either; you could avoid the copyright issue on the GPL itself by replacing the file with an unrelated file. The GPL (being the license you were given to distribute the work), however, specifies that (regardless of what files are included in the derived distribution), you must license it to others under the (official) GPL, regardless of what you've done to the file in which you received the license.
What the copyright on the GPL does do is prevent people from distributing just the actual license from that document without the preamble, instructions on using the GPL for a new package, etc.
No wonder the Debian distribution is so far behind technically. They're all so busy arguing all this legal mumbo jumbo.
The GNU FDL needs to have this invariant clause. If I write my autobiography, and someone else can change the text, well, then it's no longer an autobiography, n'es pas?
---matt
init, getty, login, and more are not GNU tools.
Now you can't use any of that new documentation in the next version of your book, unless you're willing to take the pro-Hitler rant as well. But the other person is free to take your new material, as long as he is willing to take any new Invariant Sections you add. This is the opposite of what copyleft is supposed to achieve.
None of this would be an issue if the GFDL allowed removal of Invariant Sections.
If you want to nit-pick over whether the license applies to itself or other geeky Hofstadter "strange loop" stuff, then go ahead. But while you are wasting everyone's time, at least don't act as a tool for those who would turn our world into a corporate controlled facist feudal system. "Intellectual Property" makes no more sense than refering to "right turn on red property" in areas where you are allowed to turn right at a red light, or refering to "welfare property" that you get to buy food when you have children and no job. Maybe you should get a beret and drink coffee at Mojo's while expounding on your personal deconstructionalist view that Bush is hypocrital for taking away Sadaam's right to take away other people's rights.
If you want to impress all the other geeks with your cleverness, you can't be wearing the RIAA's leash as you do it. Maybe you should stick to talking about bus speeds and RISC/CISC in the geek penis contests.
That said, the reason why Stallman has been so successful is he is actually very pragmatic in his pursuit of an idealistic goal. Look at the whole "linking is derivation" debate and LGPL versus GPL, or for that matter the GNU/Linux fiasco. Stallman is willing to annoy people and make an ass out of himself (GNU/Linux) if it pisses off the people who are already converted yet advertises for more converts; give up some rights he could conceivably claim (LGPL) if it is necessary to get a toehold in getting a Free work widely adopted; etc. He will probably just look at the "should the GPL be under the GPL" question purely in terms of "will the world be more or less free in 10 years ?" If making it GPL runs too high a risk of some evil fuck like Dub Dublin or Brett Glass making a COPYING file that looks just like the GPL but isn't, then he won't put the GPL under the GPL.
It's all about Freedom.
And you are a sad pathetic fuck for not knowing better than to use the words "intellectual property" when asking RMS a question.
You don't hear unopen sores people bitching about licenses nearly as much, do you?
In the GNU Project, discrimination against proprietary software is not just a policy--it's the principle and the purpose.
Most proponents of open source and freely distributable software of all kinds recognize that commercial software also has an important place in the world. But the FSF does not. Its licenses are designed to discriminate, and therefore do not conform either to the Debian defninition or the OSI definition. This isn't a matter of ideology; it's a matter of fact. Stallman himself says so.
Debian, get off of your armchair lawyer assess and start producing something. With Debian as far behind as it is, do you really have time to argue semantics with yet another license that may not be free enough for you? Fuck it, I am going to format my Deb box today and install RedHat or Win 2003 server just because I am sick of the elitest Debian attitude.
Doesn't GFDL stand for GNU Free Documentation License?
It almost sounds like the documentation authors do not like the idea of free software applied to their works; even as they enjoy the benefits that free software supply. Let's take a more apropriate example: Suppose that someone releases a software product with an invariable section that reads "fuck the USA". This would undoubtedly be a miniscule portion of the entire work -- now, another peson (let's say, a US citizen) may wish to come along and update the works. Upon reading the "invariable" section, though, he will be forced to choose between three consequences:
- To not work on the project at all
- To re-work then entire project from scratch
- To insert a new section that is just as childish, eventually leading to a "fork"
In each of these cases, however, free software loses time, effort and value.I have nothing against non-free licenses, but they shouldn't rear their heads in Debain; and they most definately shouldn't complain about being placed in the non-free repositories. Free is free; not just "mostly free".
The wheel is turning, but the hamster is dead.
An autobiography is not documentation. You misunderstand the license's purpose.
I'm an active documentation volunteer so this is very important to me. I have to admit that I have always found the GFDL confusing and arbitary (like its limit of how many words you can add to a front- or back-cover text). As a non-lawyer, I found the Open Publication License to be more straight-forward.
Here is the Open Publication License: http://opencontent.org/openpub/
Its only drawback are the non-free options: option A requires permission for derivative works and option B limits commercial publication. However, this can be overcome by specifying "using the Open Publication License without Options A or B".
Talk amongst yourselves. I'll give you a topic.
The GNU Free Document License is neither a gnu, nor free, nor a document license.
Discuss.
the GFDL allows portions of the licensed document to be marked "invariant", meaning you can't change those parts. This is logically equivalent to what you would have if the GPL allowed authors to mark parts of their source code as unmodifiable
No it is not equivalent - you have not read the GFDL. Only a "secondary section" can be an "invariant section". So what's a "secondary section"? It's a section that has got nothing to do with the purpose of the document. For example, if you write a document about Emacs, and license it under the GFDL, nothing that describes any part of Emacs can be a "secondary section". A "secondary section" could be something like an acknowledgement that you got moral support from your spouse/POSSLQ/kids/dog while writing the document; and you could make that an "invariant section" if you wanted to.
For Debian to make a fuss about this seems silly to me.
There are multiple real problems the Debian-legal mailing list has collected regarding the GFDL and if you read all the posts on this topic you might not have concluded as you did. Check out this thread for some poignant examples of real problems--practical concerns that give one pause before applying the GFDL, even without using invariant sections, to one's Free Software documentation. Contrary to what one might glean from the original poster's summary, not all the discussion on problems with the GFDL are contained in one debian-legal thread, not even the one I just pointed to.
Which brings me to another part of your response, "a bean counter mentality that can really be dangerous to open source projects". Debian and the FSF (the two organizations involved in this thread) are not for "open source". Both were formed long before the Open Source Initiative began and both pay attention to freedom to share and modify software. The mentality you dismiss as being dangerous is just the opposite of what you claim. It is entirely sensible and wise for an organization who cares about the freedoms of its users to act as Debian does by discussing license reviews freely and debate whether licenses Debian cares about are DFSG-free or not. Perhaps if you knew more about the two organizations involved here you would not make the mistake of ignoring or dismissing freedom as the Open Source movement does.
Digital Citizen
is dying
It also says "Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not covered by this License" and "The act of running the Program is not restricted".
I can see it now. Stallman, yelling: "It's Gnooooooooo Linux! It was all my idea, mine, mine, mine! It's Gnoooooooooooooo.... URK!"
So what we have here is Debian claiming that the FSF is not radical enough in its promotion of Free Software? That seems a bit ridiculous; even the FSF realizes that allowing the author of documentation the right to include some invariant section (such as an attribution) is necessary to get people to write free documentation at all. I never thought I'd see an argument where RMS would be on the side opposing the zealots.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Frankly, it seems to me that the GNU project would have added the invariant sections only force their political statements to be carried everywhere along the documentation.
The GNU Project is starting to come off more and more like Christianity -- a movement with a few worthy ideas at the core that's designed to suck people in and simply maintain the movement.
May we never see th
The headline of this story should read "GNU FDL" or "GFDL" - not "GNU GFDL" which is redundant.
Also, I think they mean "Debian to declare" - not "Debian GNU/Linux to declare" - as last time I checked my OS did not have the ability to express opinions.
So that is 2 mistakes and that's just the headline. If only the editors RTFA they might pay special attention to not making typos in headlines where the article says "This is the stuff of ... misspelled Slashdot headlines".
Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley
[This post is in the public domain (copyright-free) unless otherwise stated]
The DMCA has been adopted by a country other than the US?
A couple European countries have implemented the European Union Copyright Directive.
Why wasn't this reported on slashdot?
It was. Read this article about two European countries that have adopted the EUCD.
Will I retire or break 10K?
my axe. Tra-la-la-la-la.
This looks to me like a variation of the problem with the original BSD licence. You can keep adding invariate clauses that can't be removed. For instance, GNU including their political blurb, then a maintainer adding another invariant about how that is not *his* philosophy, and that his work shouldn't be taken as an approval of GNUs philosophy and so on. (BTW, to those talking about credit. You can not take credit for anyone elses work anyway, just as I can't assign copyright to me even if I get a piece of GPL-licenced code)
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
"Debian GNU/Linux" can't declare anything, it's just a product. It's the Debian Project that can declare the GFDL non-DFSG-free.
© ilmari. All rights reserved, all wrongs reversed
RMS doesn't like the BSD license because of the "obnoxious" advertising clause - that having a bunch of BSD style licenses in the same source would bloat the code because every contributor would need their copyright. But he wants the GNU nametag attached to Linux when by the same logic that RMS wants there to be a GNU on Linux, other projects with a large amount of code should be able to add their name and get something like GNU/X11/IBM/Apache/Linux.
Just a thought, while waiting for the -1 Offtopic and -1 Flamebaits...
This is the sort of nonsense that puts people off open source or what ever you want to call it. If you were the owner of a business any size business would you want to have involvement with software that was written by these people. My god is better than your god he's got six arms, well mine can make chardonnay out of gallean sea water.... crap. Fix bugs, add needed features, and make it so people "want" to use it. (By people I mean your mother, grandson, butler, and gardener) My two European federal cents worth.
That's kind of my point.
Forget the license for a second.
Say you take my source, modify & distribute it.
I can claim copyright violation, because you do not have my permission to distribute & modify.
Now, say my original work was available under the GPL to you. (or any other license I choose, but you never asked me)
IF you chose to not follow the terms of the GPL, or if you didn't know about it, but distribute anyway.. the situation is no different: you are violating copyright law.
You are NOT violationg the GPL.. because you never agreed to it in the first place. Following it's terms is one way you can get around me charging you with copyright violation.
When you assign code to the FSF, you sign a contract. The contract grants back to the contributor the right to continue to use and distribute the code, under whatever terms desired. So, if Walter Bright contributed code to the FSF, he could continue to use it in his own, proprietary software.
Because of the contracts signed with contributors, the FSF is required to maintain the software as free, forever, and the lawyers have legal standing to defend the copyright. This is a good thing.
My political, ideological, and religious beliefs when it come to computers are technology are this. I don't really have any and view with deep suspicion and general contempt anyone who does. People who get religious or extremely political about computers should get a life.
I have opinions and conclusions that are technical in nature and are derived from technical issues. Licensing is not a technical issue, whether it be the licensing on software or the licensing on the documentation that accompanies it. My take on it is that it should be whatever the creator of the software or documentation wants it to be. What people who have not worked to create the code or docs think is about as relevant as the UN. In other words, anyone not willing to roll up their sleeves and hack the code or the docs can sit down and shut up about who gets to use it under what conditions.
If the licensing on something makes it onerous to use, I won't use it. The same thing goes for documentation. I won't sit and bitch about it, or declare jihad on the infidels who dare to challenge the the gospel truth of the GPL, BSD, etc. because I quite simply DON'T GIVE A DAMN.
If it is a technical issue, I'm all ears. If it is a political issue I don't want to hear about it because if experience has taught me anything its that people who are overly political are generally full of shit regardless of the slant their politics take. Admittedly that makes me full of shit myself, but not when it comes to computers.
Lee
Muslim community leaders warn of backlash from tomorrow morning's terrorist attack.
Uhh, you can run a linux box perfectly well without apache or x11 - it's sort of hard to do the same without gnu core/file/textutils etc.
This isn't related to comment you replied to, however. Notice that that was about an Invariant Section containing the author's opinion of a feature that was later removed.
The point is that almost nobody writes documentation for free. GNU is, in fact, the only major provider of Free Software that consistently provides excellent documentation along with their software. The idea of invariant sections is that you can write documentation, and then provide something about who you are. For example, if you're a company, and you write a book documenting some piece of software, you could release it as a traditional copyrighted book. The purpose of the GNU FDL is to allow you to release it for Free, with an invariant section saying "I wrote this, and its writing was funded by So-and-So Publishers; if you'd like to support our work, buy that version."
If this is disallowed, it will not encourage "more-Free" documentation. It will instead encourage people to take their work and publish it as traditional copyrighted documentation.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Free software or documentation will probably be created to replace them.
Given the generally horrible state of Free Software documentation, I find this unlikely. This lack of free documentation was, in fact, the very problem the GNU FDL was intended to solve.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
If the code is also part of that document, then you probably have a license conflict between the GPL and the GFDL, unless you dual-licensed it.
Wouldn't it have been much easier to simply make the dissertation non-free, and release the code and documentation separately as a GPLed work?
...it is my sad duty to inform you that you have your head stuck up your ass.
The requirement of copyright assignment for non-trivial contributions is for the coder's protection, not the FSF's. Pretend this requirement didn't exist, and you contribute some hefty cool optimization. The copyright is in your name. Now MegaEvilCorp steals it.
It's under the GPL, so in theory you can fight it. But what resources do you have? You're barely making shit per hour at the local Best Buy and you're saving up for a new car. Nobody else has the legal right to step in to challenge MegaEvilCorp, because only you own the copyright.
Or perhaps you're a programmer for NotTooBadCorp, who promised you that your work for GCC wouldn't be considered a conflict of interest with your job duties. (After all, you program widgets in your job, not compilers.) But then the hefty cool optimization stirs up attention, and the CEO decides that maybe NotTooBadCorp officially owns you, your apartment, your kidneys, and all the code you contributed to GCC. What are you going to do about it?
Other scenarios are possible. In all of them, you get screwed, and so do all GCC users.
But since the FSF has the copyright, they can enforce the GPL should that become necessary. They can afford it.
Also, you probably don't realize that contributors are supposed to keep track of what they contribute. That way we can, with a written notice, revoke the copyright assignment. The FSF gives you the ownership back, and you have to take your code out of the source. So it's not like the assignment is etched in stone; the code you wrote is still yours.
You cannot apply a technological solution to a sociological problem. (Edwards' Law)
You are not allowed to take the GNU GPL, edit the sections you dislike, call the result MV GPL, and publish *your own* software under that new license.
The *text* of the GNU GPL is under a very restrictive license, at least as restrictive as the invariant sections of the GFDL.
The point is that if you really insist on being holier than the pope on the issue of free information, you cannot distribute any software under the GNU GPL. While the software covered by the GNU GPL is free accoding to the Debian free software guidelines, the text of the license itself is not free, and the license requires that it itself is distributed together with the software as an "invariant section".
Do you have any idea what a NDA is?
The GPL is based on copyright. This means that you can read, use and study code covered by it, and use and techniques and knowledge you gained by doing so in your own work. The ideas behind a copyrighted work is yours to play with, no strings attached. Only the specific expression of the ideas are controlled by copyright. You cannot copy that expression without permission, and the GPL is a conditional permission.
An NDA is a contract that you sign where you promisse to keep information secrets, i.e. not just the particular expression as in copyright, but the ideas themselves. This is far more restritive than any copyright based license can ever be.
Not true. If you look at GPLed code, and then write something similar, you can be accused of having created a derivative work -- in which case you will lose the rights to your work. (Worse yet, you'll be forced to license it under the GPL, which could destroy your livelihood and/or your business.)
A lawyer who in fact works for the Open Source Initiative has written an essay explaining the dangers of perusing source code which is licensed in a way that is hostile to your interests. (In his case, he's looking at Microsoft's "shared source" license.) See
http://www.rosenlaw.com/html/GL8.pdf
--Brett Glass
Any fool must understand that for software to be Free, people must be unfree to make modifications that can make it unfree. Since Copyleft uses Copyright-laws, this just must be so. Thus, if the GPL-license text is itself modifiable, it defeats the whole purpose of a license altogether. But of course you can alter the text and attribute it to yourself, create a derivative license. You just can't call it a "GPL" license, attribute it to Richard Stallmann or make other false claims..
With Free Software, the software is free, nobody can make changes and hide it away from the world while distributing the executable code. This implies that the people's freedom must be restricted, as is fact with Copyright. Armed police will hunt you down and confiscate your computer while accusing you for "Terrorism!".
Yes, it isn't easy getting everybody to understand this.. You can start now.
http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/
I think it's also perfectly reasonable (if not a beauracratic morass) to allow for different CLASSES of copyrighted works.
Personally, I find classes of copyrighted works to be stupid, moronic and MEGA-beauraucratic. Who's to set these fantastic guidelines and restrict the future in such a way? Nobody I know can predict the future with any accuracy.
I'm not interested in "improving" an MP3 I download, but I would like to get rid of an annoying bug in software and share it with others. Etc.
Just because you don't have a use for it, doesn't mean thousands of DJs don't have use for it to create something new. Without it, the genre of rave and techno would simply not be the way it became.
http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/
There is no field of endeavor or group of people prohibited by the GPL. Any group of people can make derivatives based on GPL'd software provided they accept the license agreements, and anyone in any field of endeavor may choose to do so. The only thing it discriminates against is people who choose not to accept the license agreement, which is a necessary requirement for all licenses (for example, the BSD license discriminates against people who wish to strip copyright information from the files).
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
...unless the document represents the changed opinions as the original author's intent.
.NET.
If I release a piece of code under the GPL, I have to accept that someone may come along and make changes to it which I am completely opposed to for philosophical and ethical reasons--for instance, they might take my code and make it run on
Why shouldn't people be allowed to do the same with documentation? Unless they alter the documentation to lie that the new views are those of the original author, I don't see a problem.
Personally, I don't think misrepresentation is the real issue here at all. I think the FSF just wants to be able to ensure that its rants get distributed with all its software.
Well, two can play at that game--let's all write high quality documentation for free software, and add a paragraph of dirt and gossip about Richard Stallman as an invariant part of the documentation. We'll soon see that GFDL change...
Or just put a few comments in about how "GNU would never have been able to deliver an operating system if Linus Torvalds hadn't helped them out by writing Linux"... as invariant sections.
GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
"The public performance right is generally held to cover computer software, since software is considered a literary work under the Copyright Act. In addition, many software programs fall under the definition of an audio visual work. The application of the public performance right to software has not be fully developed, except that it is clear that a publicly available video game is controlled by this right." - http://www.bitlaw.com/copyright/scope.html
Furthermore, me changing the license text doesn't change the actual license of the document. It just means I'm lying about the actual license, and that's not allowed because the license is a legal document.
Also, the author's name is going to be in the copyright statements, not in an Invariant Section. Did you even check the GFDL's definition of Invariant Sections? Nothing in your rant is related to what I said.
Uhh, you can run a linux box perfectly well without apache or x11 - it's sort of hard to do the same without gnu core/file/textutils etc.
RMS objects to the license on its own, doesn't say "I hate the BSD license in tools ported to Linux" It's kind of hard to run BSD without tools the BSD userland, which is BSD licensed. Or should BSD licensed tools be required to change their license once they get compiled for Linux?
You asked a couple questions and stated some hypothetical situations which I address below:
A vendor supplied kernel based on the Linux source code is still the Linux kernel, even if it's a fork. Calling a new operating system Linux or calling an existing product Linux though it is not based on the original kernel is almost certainly a trademark violation. As Linus Torvalds owns the trademark, he can do as he will with respect to enforcement, and in fact he must, lest he lose the trademark status. Ultimately, the question would be answered in a court of law, if it ever made it that far.
While the Free Software Foundation does not appear to have trademarked the term "GPL," it would not be difficult to demonstrate in court that the requirements for common law trademark have been met. Consequently, the FSF would be in a position to bring litigation against anyone who was diluting the GPL brand.
Modifying the COPYING file will not change the license. You seem to answer this yourself at the end of the paragraph. In order to avoid violating the license, you can only distribute the file with the original license.
As far as using copyright law to protect the entirety of the license; this seems reasonable enough. If someone wants to make wholesale changes, they should just write their own. The GPL is very well thought out; I don't think there are any pieces that could be removed without introducing a self-defeating loophole.
-Hope
Debian sucks! Use Slack or Red Hat
"Selling commercial software" isn't a field of endeavor; it's one method of undertaking an endeavor in any field. The GPL is certainly not designed to protect all methods of endeavors equally. In fact, I would not use it if it were; if I'm going to release my code to you, I'm going to attach conditions to it. With normal commercial software, I get money in return. If I'm going to give you my work for free, I'm going to want something else in return; in the case of the GPL, it's any modifications you make to it. If you want to do whatever you want with no strings attached, write your own damn code.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Do you have any idea what context is?
Context is "discourse that surrounds a language unit and helps to determine its interpretation [syn: linguistic context, context of use] 2: the set of facts or circumstances that surround a situation or event; 'the historical context'".
Now that we've cleared that up, if you examine the original context, the point that I was trying to make was that it is possible (not in all cases, but it's possible) to use information obtained under NDA to develop a product which can be released in source form to the public.
Somebody get that guy an ambulance!
About your second point, I'm realised recently that invariant sections can't even be removed or updated by their author, even if they're no longer relevant, if the manual has been through a few hands already. Even the person who wrote and added an invariant section would have to get permission from all copyright holders to remove it. The FSF avoids this by collecting copyright assignments from all contributors, of course. Frankly, I wouldn't have a problem with the FSF using the GFDL as long as they didn't try to promote it as a generic solution.
It would actually be nice if there'd be only one licence on one installation of Linux in whatever pre-decided directory location and softlinked to it where-ever needed..
- Voice of Ambience -
- Voice of Ambience -