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."
Just buy Windows you cheap bastards.
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!
Join the real linux club, and be one of the 1000's of 1337 users TODAY!. No stupid licencing, no religous zealots, no gnu/ prefixes, just power and control, and we like it!
apt-get uninstall debian; emerge gentoo!
Really? And how would you feel if you got a nice piece of documentation, and it included a scathing critique of the Iraq war as an "Invariant Section"?
That's what these sections are meant for -- they're meant to keep ideological rants safe from being removed from documentation.
If someone did put some rant about the Iraq war in their free documentation (under a license other than the one under discussion), there would be a ton of places where you could get a copy with that garbage stripped out. However, if it's marked "Invariant" (i.e. immutable and nonremovable), that would be illegal.
BSD is free the way Benedict Arnold was for the Revolution. BSD license creates a one-way valve, where software produced in the Free World can be used by the dark side but we never get any benefit from them.
Freedom to own slaves is a very twisted sort of Freedom. If you believe in a Freedom, then you go with the GPL. If you think Freedom is nice but really you are secretely nervous about it, sort of sunshine patriot and summer soldier, then you harp about BSD to keep your retreat lines open.
Burn your boats like Cortez, or you are not really yet in the New and Free World. GPL forever, BSD'ers are traitors who will be stood against the wall when the time comes.
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.
Bradley Kuhn recently announced that the FSF plans to modify the GPL so that it restricts the running of the program, or derivatives of it, for profit.
No. It's pointing out that what the FSF is advocating is not actually freedom. The FSF advocates specific licensing terms for software which are not truly free. Yes, they involve giving some things away at no cost, but their true purpose is to harm specific groups of people and fields of endeavor which Richard Stallman does not like. Stallman is zealously pursuing his "enemies," whereas Debian seeks logical consistency and ethical behavior. This is worth respecting. It's sad that Debian has so much invested in GPLed software, because the GPL does not meet Debian's own definition of "free" (as explained earlier).