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."
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
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 ...
In case you didn't realise, any works completely of your creation can be used in any way you like, as you're the sole copyright holder.
So the only case where you wouldn't be able to take a work you've released under GPL and include it in a closed source application is where you've either (a) originally taken source that was under GPL or similar and added to it or (b) applied patches from people where those patches were supplied in the understanding that the resulting app would be released under GPL or similar license.
In other words, your comment about releasing your own works into the public domain because it gives you more freedom are wrong.
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.
I'd like to invite you to peruse this article in my Slashdot journal, which responds to that very claim. In brief: the overwhelming difference is that "Microsoft" (read: the proprietary/EULA licensing model) places onerous restrictions and risks upon the ordinary user -- not even just the programmer! -- for which there is no equivalent in Free 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.
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.
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));
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.
Nah, thats the LGPL. The GPL doesn't let you link against non-GPL libs IIR.
The problem with slashdot is that most of its users were bullied and stuffed into lockers as kids!
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.
The GFDL's Preamble states: We have designed this License in order to use it for manuals for free software, because free software needs free documentation: a free program should come with manuals providing the same freedoms that the software does.
But the reality seems to be that Freedom to the FSF only really matters when it comes to software. A quick look at the FSF's audio section shows that their interpretation of Freedom doesn't extend very far in other areas. Would software released under a license that allows "verbatim copying and distribution" be considered FSF free?
Debian takes a broader view that everything in the distro should be "Free". It may sound a bit anal to expect that manuals, audio and graphics should be covered by the same rights to modification, but the sad fact is that it's not just an academic point. Quake2 may be GPL software, but the graphics, music, etc are not covered by the GPL. Since Debian groups software into Free and Non-Free sections, it's important that the distinction is pointed out...regardless of whether it's Quake 2 or GCC.
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.
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
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
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.
You'll see that the FSF is concerned with free documentation as well. The problem here is that some people are misunderstanding the invariant section provision of the FDL. As stated in that link, not every piece of writing is the same thing as software. The FDL insists that all the technical instructions be freely modifiable so that someone who creates a derivative piece of software can also modify the manual to keep it accurate.
However, some parts of a manual might be literary or express an author's opinion. This might be a political opinion ("software should be free") or it could be a technical opinion ("monolithic kernels suck"). But whatever it is it doesn't make sense for the creator of a derivative manual to change those opinions--that would be lying about the original author's intent.
The FDL recognizes that an author may have the need to guard these sections (remember, they can't have anything to do with the instructions to use the program). It doesn't make the manual any less free.
demi
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.
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.
As I state elsewhere in this subject my MSc thesis was under the FDL, and my results were an invariant section. I didn't want anyone simply changing what results I got to lie about my work. Of course anyone changing the document could add their own results section, reflecting any changes they had made to the program.. the the invariant section was quite important
BSD is largely an independent userland. INIT, GETTY, LOGIN, etc, are from BSD. The shell is ASH, CSH, TCSH, or KSH, all developed either as part of BSD or independently of any project. The 'ls', 'more', 'man', 'cat', etc command line tools were all developed as part of the BSD projects. Only a handful of tools, the *roff typesetting clones and some of the more important development tools (like GCC, but even 'make' by default is the BSD, not GNU version) are from the GNU project.
That's why BSD isn't GNU/BSD.
Debian, and most versions of the operating system popularly known as "Linux", has a userland that's pretty much entirely GNU save for the very rare exception. init, getty, login, bash, ls, more, cat, make, plus the GNU tools BSD uses, are all from the GNU project.
That's why Debian is GNU/Linux, and why many people feel the operating system popularly known as "Linux" should be refered to as GNU/Linux.
It has nothing to do with agreeing with the FSF or not. If your operating system is primarily GNU, it's GNU. If it's not, it isn't.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
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.
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]
No wonder the Debian distribution is so far behind technically. They're all so busy arguing all this legal mumbo jumbo.
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.
The problem is, RMS (and therefore the FSF) believes that IP rules should be based on an examination of the technical details surrounding a particular work and their cultural/social implications. Since these details vary widely between different types of works, RMS prefers a wide variety of rules: music should be freely copiable, but not modifiable; software should be modifiable, but not distributable as binaries-only. His position on printed documentation used to be that it should be modifiable, but it doesn't matter whether it comes with source, since printing documentation from source isn't a technology that's widely available (like compiling software is).
When RMS applies his system to philosophical documents, like the GNU Manifesto, he concludes that these should not be modifiable, since that would open the door for mis-representation of the original writer's opinions. So, if he includes a philosophical/political rant in a GNU manual, he prohibits modifying that section. Debian, OTOH, believes that everything should be modifiable, so they don't approve of RMS's position w.r.t. invariant sections (which is just the FDL's term for don't-modify-this philosophical rants).
There are reasons why democracy does not work nearly as well as capitalism.
-- David D. Friedman
That's right. OpenBSD in fact is seeking to get
rid of _all_ GPL'd userland, no wait - all unfree
(as in BSD/MIT/X11 licence) code.
In fact, sendmail is in the unfree subdir as well.
My Karma isn't excellent, damn it! (And
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.
is dying
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
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]
You are wrong. GPL does not discriminate against commercial endeavours. It just say you can't take free code and make it unfree. I.e., you get people's contribution for free, so as decency dictates then you should return your contribution. It says this regardless of who you are: commercial entity, GWB, John Smith, McDonalds, Britney Spears, Pfizer, Brett Glass, or me.
You accuse of FSF of discriminating against commercial endeavours. Just because the company with self-serving-only interest is not allowed by GPL to take and not give back? That's lame. GPL does not discrimate against commercial endeavours, it does not discriminate. Period. If you want to insist that GPL does discriminates, then, OK, GPL discriminates--it discriminates against everyone equally.
You want a special treatment for commercial companies? Nah, I don't think you want that. What I think you want is a rule that also does not discriminate, but at the same time allow commercial companies to "do their usual business". Unfortunately, given the nature of the kind of commercial companies that you have in mind, this will put everyone else at a disadvantage, because your kind of commercial companies do not share. GPL is designed so that everyone has access to the same thing, no one can co-opt the code.
In the GNU Project, discrimination against proprietary software is not just a policy--it's the principle and the purpose.
Yep. Damn right. You are trying to use this quote to support your point, but it only fools those that don't read carefully. Let me translate it for you: We don't want people to steal our code--our code is for everyone equally . It says nothing about discrimination against commercial endeavours. It discriminates against proprietary software, which is not an entity, and certainly not a commercial company. GPL is to preserve the freedom of everyone to access the code. If some commercial entity, or anyone else for that matter, wants to come and take advantage of that code and not give back the advantage, the GPL prevents that.
GPL is the free-est license in the world: it gives you all freedom, except the freedom to take that freedom away. But you don't want to see that, do you?
Cheers,
e.
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.
The OSI doesn't agree with your 'facts', as the GPL is prominently acknowledged in their list of approved licenses. And rightfully so, because, other than you, the OSI *did* put a lot of thinking into their licensing approvals and the Open Source Definition. Perhaps *you* should get your facts straight first. Troll.
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
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...
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.
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.