Unfortunately yes. Translation of invariant sections is definitly not allowed.
> The FSF said that [...] it was OK to translate > it if the meaning didn't change
They said it was okay to "alter its form", not translate it. They could be referring to formatting etc.
> So I guess the same should aply to these > invariant sections
Allowing translation requires that you trust the translator. If I write an off-topic section at the end of a book that gives my opinions of something, I don't want M$ to have the option of translating it. I wouldn't trust their translator.
My problem is that if I write a GFDL'd document, someone else can add content and add an invariant section. They benefit fully from my work but I can't benefit from their work unless I include the section titled "Proprietary Software Rules!!", or "Why I Like To Sniff Knickers".
Invariant sections should be unalterable but removable.
If RMS was a hippie, GNU would have been public domain, and it would have lasted 2 years. Nothing in the public domain stays free. Companies would have forked GNU software, not contributed back, and RMS would be competing against his own work on uneven terms.
The restrictions of the GPL can be summed up as "do what you want, just don't take freedoms away from me or anyone else".
(> free to charge
you can charge what you like for GPL software.)
BSD doesn't work in the real world. With the BSD license, a company that doesn't give their code back to the community has the advantage of one extra feature. If they do contribute back to the community, they lose this advantage. So the incentive is to *not* contribute.
The GPL levels the playing fields, everyone has to play fair.
For pragmatic reasons, I won't install any non-free software on my machines.
I don't want to run anything that isn't available for community review. I don't want to store any date in a format that can only be retrieved by one application. I don't want any of my confidential communications being handled by software that works in secret.
Ethics is the reason I write Free Software but my reasons for using and advocating it are practical.
We've come too far to require compromise. At this stage, compromise is more short sightedness that pragmatic.
I find the practical benefits of Free Software very compelling.
With GPL'd software, the distributor has to give the user what they want or the user will find a new distributor. And if a software package does things that users don't like - the package will be forked.
I can trust GPL'd software not to:..be crippled to encourage me to buy more software..throw ads at me..disappear..etc. If the software did these things, it would be forked.
Free Software is practical, OpenSource (which is usually a mis-used term) generally means short sightedness. When an executive allows a companies data to be managed by a piece of software they have no control over, they are being impractical. For practicals sake, people should demand Free Software.
As a Free Software zealot myself, I have problems with the GNU FDL.
Any section that does not contain subject related content can be flagged as invariant. Companies can add a spiel about what a great company they are and no one is allowed to remove this from the document. Ok, so they get credit. Big Deal.
If I write a manual, a company can update it and add their invariant section. If I later decide to add the new material from the company to my copy of the manual, I have to add their invariant section, despite being the author of most of the content.
Also, if someone decides to translate a GFDL'd document, they are not allowed to translate the invariant section, so they have a 400 page book in spanish with 12 pages of some silly language that the readership cannot understand stuck at the back.
Invariant sections should be removable. (Copyright notices are automatically non-removable)
My biggest worry about this fork was that the developers were going to announce a "practical" approach to drivers, one that would include non-free drivers etc.
From the website: "All code that enters the project is under the standard X11 license, or compatible free license as specified by the Free Software Foundation"
Public mailing lists should have been the method of communication for the xfree developers right from the start. This is great news. The use of Arch as the version control system is iceing on the cake.
I was looking forward to a good rebuttal but Mark Radcliffe's points are quite weak.
He argues that GNU/Linux users could be in violation because "Every time you load software into the processor of the computer, you're making a copy". If that's the best argument against Moglen's position then I'll continue to bet on Moglen. It could be deemed worthy of a day (year) in court but I'm content that it would ultimately fail.
Radcliffe also points out that "the only lawsuit on record to date concerning SCO and Linux is the one SCO has filed against IBM". Moglen never claimed otherwise, he commented on the threatening letters that SCO have been sending to some GNU/Linux users.
Radclife's biggest omission is that he doesn't comment on Moglens question "where's the evidence?".
(Radclife seems to be generally commenting rather than rubutting Moglens arguments but his comments don't worry me.)
Anyway, if there's a problem with Linux, we'll just run our GNU systems on the FreeBSD kernel:) GNU/FreeBSD
No one has suggested that the public sector should use Free Software because they owe it to us.
I don't "demand" that the public sector uses Free Software but they should be made aware of it, and given the long term cost difference, I think they should give it a serious thought.
What if the government of my/your country suspended all software purchases for one year? How much would they save?
I bet they'd save enough to pay a bunch of developers to add the final polish they want to whatever Free desktop they go with.
I wouldn't force it on them, but I will say "Look, we have a completely free operating system here, the code can be altered and distributed without royalty, your IT dept can fix bugs and customise it and will benefit from the customisations made by others.".
This isn't about pushing an agenda, it's about helping people. Free Software doesn't have payed marketing divisions. It has a community.
We all know the problem. GNU/Linux is great but it's not yet great+win32-compatible. To fully replace windows requires more than just bettering them, our software must stand head and shoulders above them.
But how do we get there?
Free Software needs advocates. It's needs people that are willing to fire the first shot and defend their position. Being anti-something is easy, you only have to nit-pick one flaw but defending something takes real courage, you have to make yourself accountable for every aspect.
For something that will slash government and school software costs, it's astonishing how much resistance we face. People that understand the situation: YOU are elected. Get the word out. Email journalists when they call the OS "Linux" or neglect to point out it's free-as-in-speech benefits. Put some effort into it but don't be afraid to mess up, it's all practice.
Free Software will change the world for the better. It'll be ready when it's ready but it'll will get done faster if you help.
Ciaran O'Riordan
Free Software eats the foundations of DRM
on
Tim O'Reilly Interview
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
DRM will fail eventually, it's up to the Big vendors to get it in quickly so that anti-DRM groups won't have time to involve the consumers.
We can counter DRM by lobbying our governments, but we also deaden it's affect when we decide that we will only use software when we can: 0. look into it's workings 1. recompile it to make sure we're being shown the real code 2. alter it if we don't like what it does, and 3. distribute altered versions so that these freedoms benefit everyone, not just programmers.
We must behave as a community. We will win, but the sooner we start working on it, the less we'll have to fight.
This will be great, we'll all head to a public house at around 7:00 on Friday, drink beer like we can handle it, then spontaineously all leave at once when closing time is called.
It would be very helpful if you could send emails or faxes to MEPs. Your non-EU citizenship can be used as a positive, i.e.:
"As an American, I see first hand how software patents hurt innovation and competition in a software industry. Start ups find it hard to enter the market when they can be threatened with costly patent lawsuits and investors are nervous about giving funding to a company when they know that a deeper bank account will likely draw the attention of Intellectual Propertly law firms"
If you only speak english, stick with the UK and Ireland. Many EU citizens are already talking with their MEPs, your emails or faxes would be a great reinforcement.
Knocking RMS is quite popular among armchair generals but he is an inspiration to the people getting real work done on software freedom issues.
His software patents speech makes the issues very easy to understand: http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mgk25/stallm an-patents.ht ml
He has also brought the issues to the mass media through an article he and Nick Hill wrote for The Guardian (UK newspaper): http://www.guardian.co.uk/Print/0,385 8,4683640,00. html
RMS has mobilized large numbers of people in the EU to fight this directive. Without his work, I and many others would not be working on this issue at all.
Please contact your national FreeSoftware or digital-freedom group to organise an Adopt-an-MEP campaign. If the vote did take place tomorrow, we would lose but with the help of a few concerned citizens, we will win.
Hi Loosewire,
The coming vote is open to all MEPs so please contact as many as you can, preferably from your own country. Please also mail your local FreeSoftware/LUG/digital-freedom groups to encourage them to do some work on this one.
Gathering info about this topic is pretty hard. swpat.ffii.org is the main website for info but it's a real chore to use. softwarepatents.co.uk is a good site but lacks a lot of the specifics.
Most important is the counter proposal: http://swpat.ffii.org/analysis/epc52/in dex.en.html (this proposes a clarification that dissallows software patents).
An interesting page is: http://swpat.ffii.org/papers/eubsa-swpat0202/ deman ds/index.en.html
Ireland has 2.5% of the votes on this issue. Not all MEPs turn up for votes like this, so if all the Irish MEPs turn up, their votes may make up a larger portion.
Europeans, please do something. Phone you MEPs on Monday (or leave a message today and phone again on Monday).
Patents are going to ruin the software industry by handing even more power to the companies that have vast bank accounts and legal team (i.e. the ones that really don't need this extra power).
A good proposed amendment: http://swpat.ffii.org/analysis/epc52/index.en.html
(tell you MEPs to look at this, we have to unite with a definite proposal. Simply saying "we don't want software patents" doesn't give an MEP much to say)
Use the phone. Email is easily ignored. You'll often get answering machines so think of a short useful message to leave, mention the proposed amendment and tell them your sending them an email with the details.
Slashdot Mirror
> I'm probably mixing things up
Unfortunately yes. Translation of invariant sections is definitly not allowed.
> The FSF said that [...] it was OK to translate
> it if the meaning didn't change
They said it was okay to "alter its form", not translate it. They could be referring to formatting etc.
> So I guess the same should aply to these
> invariant sections
Allowing translation requires that you trust the translator. If I write an off-topic section at the end of a book that gives my opinions of something, I don't want M$ to have the option of translating it. I wouldn't trust their translator.
My problem is that if I write a GFDL'd document, someone else can add content and add an invariant section. They benefit fully from my work but I can't benefit from their work unless I include the section titled "Proprietary Software Rules!!", or "Why I Like To Sniff Knickers".
Invariant sections should be unalterable but removable.
Ciaran O'Riordan
> If the price goes up [...] you may go with a
> cheaper program (it's called "competition")
Or you may have to upgrade because the people you are working with are now using the newer file format (it's called "lock-in").
If RMS was a hippie, GNU would have been public domain, and it would have lasted 2 years. Nothing in the public domain stays free. Companies would have forked GNU software, not contributed back, and RMS would be competing against his own work on uneven terms.
The restrictions of the GPL can be summed up as "do what you want, just don't take freedoms away from me or anyone else".
(> free to charge
you can charge what you like for GPL software.)
BSD doesn't work in the real world. With the BSD license, a company that doesn't give their code back to the community has the advantage of one extra feature. If they do contribute back to the community, they lose this advantage. So the incentive is to *not* contribute.
The GPL levels the playing fields, everyone has to play fair.
Ciaran O'Riordan
So, compromise is pragmatic.
For pragmatic reasons, I won't install any non-free software on my machines.
I don't want to run anything that isn't available for community review. I don't want to store any date in a format that can only be retrieved by one application. I don't want any of my confidential communications being handled by software that works in secret.
Ethics is the reason I write Free Software but my reasons for using and advocating it are practical.
We've come too far to require compromise. At this stage, compromise is more short sightedness that pragmatic.
Ciaran O'Riordan
Irish eh?
If you feel like joining the fight to stop patent and copyright inflation, we have a list fsfe-ie@fsfeurope.org
I find the practical benefits of Free Software very compelling.
..be crippled to encourage me to buy more software ..throw ads at me ..disappear ..etc.
With GPL'd software, the distributor has to give the user what they want or the user will find a new distributor. And if a software package does things that users don't like - the package will be forked.
I can trust GPL'd software not to:
If the software did these things, it would be forked.
Free Software is practical, OpenSource (which is usually a mis-used term) generally means short sightedness. When an executive allows a companies data to be managed by a piece of software they have no control over, they are being impractical. For practicals sake, people should demand Free Software.
Ciaran O'Riordan
As a Free Software zealot myself, I have problems with the GNU FDL.
Any section that does not contain subject related content can be flagged as invariant. Companies can add a spiel about what a great company they are and no one is allowed to remove this from the document. Ok, so they get credit. Big Deal.
If I write a manual, a company can update it and add their invariant section. If I later decide to add the new material from the company to my copy of the manual, I have to add their invariant section, despite being the author of most of the content.
Also, if someone decides to translate a GFDL'd document, they are not allowed to translate the invariant section, so they have a 400 page book in spanish with 12 pages of some silly language that the readership cannot understand stuck at the back.
Invariant sections should be removable. (Copyright notices are automatically non-removable)
Ciaran O'Riordan
> He is the antithesis of common sense and
> practicality
Copyleft restricts peoples freedom but it's there becuase he is practical.
The LGPL does less than the GPL to protect our freedoms but it exists because he is practical.
Think of how far the GNU project has come. It's not going away, and it didn't get there becuase it had an impractical founder.
Ciaran O'Riordan
--
My biggest worry about this fork was that the developers were going to announce a "practical" approach to drivers, one that would include non-free drivers etc.
From the website:
"All code that enters the project is under the standard X11 license, or compatible free license as specified by the Free Software Foundation"
Public mailing lists should have been the method of communication for the xfree developers right from the start. This is great news. The use of Arch as the version control system is iceing on the cake.
Ciaran O'Riordan
> The submitter doesn't even say/type "important"
It's the tenth word of the first sentence they typed.
> WTF?
RTFP!
(the subject line was from another comment, I forgot to change it. Anonymous Coward will get over it I'm sure)
--
You have defined "important" as meaning legislated highly. That's your call. You must derive a very structured life from this belief :P
--
Thanks for the link.
:)
I was looking forward to a good rebuttal but Mark Radcliffe's points are quite weak.
He argues that GNU/Linux users could be in violation because "Every time you load software into the processor of the computer, you're making a copy". If that's the best argument against Moglen's position then I'll continue to bet on Moglen. It could be deemed worthy of a day (year) in court but I'm content that it would ultimately fail.
Radcliffe also points out that "the only lawsuit on record to date concerning SCO and Linux is the one SCO has filed against IBM". Moglen never claimed otherwise, he commented on the threatening letters that SCO have been sending to some GNU/Linux users.
Radclife's biggest omission is that he doesn't comment on Moglens question "where's the evidence?".
(Radclife seems to be generally commenting rather than rubutting Moglens arguments but his comments don't worry me.)
Anyway, if there's a problem with Linux, we'll just run our GNU systems on the FreeBSD kernel
GNU/FreeBSD
Ciaran O'Riordan
OSDL have produced Positional Paper on the SCO issue.
It's a very well written 5-page document by FSF General counsel Eben Moglen, and can be found here.
Ciaran O'Riordan
--
No one has suggested that the public sector should use Free Software because they owe it to us.
I don't "demand" that the public sector uses Free Software but they should be made aware of it, and given the long term cost difference, I think they should give it a serious thought.
What if the government of my/your country suspended all software purchases for one year? How much would they save?
I bet they'd save enough to pay a bunch of developers to add the final polish they want to whatever Free desktop they go with.
I wouldn't force it on them, but I will say "Look, we have a completely free operating system here, the code can be altered and distributed without royalty, your IT dept can fix bugs and customise it and will benefit from the customisations made by others.".
This isn't about pushing an agenda, it's about helping people. Free Software doesn't have payed marketing divisions. It has a community.
Ciaran O'Riordan
We all know the problem. GNU/Linux is great but it's not yet great+win32-compatible. To fully replace windows requires more than just bettering them, our software must stand head and shoulders above them.
But how do we get there?
Free Software needs advocates. It's needs people that are willing to fire the first shot and defend their position. Being anti-something is easy, you only have to nit-pick one flaw but defending something takes real courage, you have to make yourself accountable for every aspect.
For something that will slash government and school software costs, it's astonishing how much resistance we face. People that understand the situation: YOU are elected. Get the word out. Email journalists when they call the OS "Linux" or neglect to point out it's free-as-in-speech benefits. Put some effort into it but don't be afraid to mess up, it's all practice.
Free Software will change the world for the better. It'll be ready when it's ready but it'll will get done faster if you help.
Ciaran O'Riordan
DRM will fail eventually, it's up to the Big vendors to get it in quickly so that anti-DRM groups won't have time to involve the consumers.
We can counter DRM by lobbying our governments, but we also deaden it's affect when we decide that we will only use software when we can:
0. look into it's workings
1. recompile it to make sure we're being shown the real code
2. alter it if we don't like what it does, and
3. distribute altered versions so that these freedoms benefit everyone, not just programmers.
We must behave as a community. We will win, but the sooner we start working on it, the less we'll have to fight.
Ciaran O'Riordan
This will be great, we'll all head to a public house at around 7:00 on Friday, drink beer like we can handle it, then spontaineously all leave at once when closing time is called.
Who's interested?
Some people are already working on this, please work with them:
l d=0&commentsort=0&tid=155&tid=99&mode=thread&pid=6 327875#6328000
http://www.nongnu.org/padb/
Development of the database is being worked on at:
http://savannah.nongnu.org/projects/padb/
and the software used is Free Software, available at:
http://savannah.nongnu.org/projects/topas/
Lobbying EU MEPs is still the best thing we can do right now, people from any country can do this. I gave an example for what an American can do in a later post:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=69331&thresho
Ciaran O'Riordan
Wow. Thanks for your international interest JBN.
r tition?ipid=0&ilg=EN&iorig=home&imsg=
. html ? vpath=/articles/2003/05/28/view02.htm
It would be very helpful if you could send emails or faxes to MEPs. Your non-EU citizenship can be used as a positive, i.e.:
"As an American, I see first hand how software patents hurt innovation and competition in a software industry. Start ups find it hard to enter the market when they can be threatened with costly patent lawsuits and investors are nervous about giving funding to a company when they know that a deeper bank account will likely draw the attention of Intellectual Propertly law firms"
There is a listing of all EU MEPs at:
http://wwwdb.europarl.eu.int/ep5/owa/p_meps2.repa
Good arguments for talking to non-techs can be found at:
(RMS and Nick Hill, longish)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Print/0,3858,4683640,00
(and a short one from me:)
http://www.electronicsweekly.com/issue/inview.asp
If you only speak english, stick with the UK and Ireland. Many EU citizens are already talking with their MEPs, your emails or faxes would be a great reinforcement.
Ciaran O'Riordan
I very strongly dissagree.
m an-patents.ht ml
5 8,4683640,00. html
Knocking RMS is quite popular among armchair generals but he is an inspiration to the people getting real work done on software freedom issues.
His software patents speech makes the issues very easy to understand:
http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mgk25/stall
He has also brought the issues to the mass media through an article he and Nick Hill wrote for The Guardian (UK newspaper):
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Print/0,38
RMS has mobilized large numbers of people in the EU to fight this directive. Without his work, I and many others would not be working on this issue at all.
Ciaran O'Riordan
Great Newst ml
The vote has been postponed until September 1st.
All info at:
http://swpat.ffii.org/news/03/plen0626/index.en.h
This means we must have their attention.
Please contact your national FreeSoftware or digital-freedom group to organise an Adopt-an-MEP campaign. If the vote did take place tomorrow, we would lose but with the help of a few concerned citizens, we will win.
Ciaran O'Riordan
one more thing:
You probably didn't vote for these people, your government made that decision.
The rules have since been changed though. In future, MEPs will be voted for by the people.
Hi Loosewire,
n dex.en.html
/ deman ds/index.en.html
The coming vote is open to all MEPs so please contact as many as you can, preferably from your own country. Please also mail your local FreeSoftware/LUG/digital-freedom groups to encourage them to do some work on this one.
Gathering info about this topic is pretty hard. swpat.ffii.org is the main website for info but it's a real chore to use. softwarepatents.co.uk is a good site but lacks a lot of the specifics.
Most important is the counter proposal:
http://swpat.ffii.org/analysis/epc52/i
(this proposes a clarification that dissallows software patents).
An interesting page is:
http://swpat.ffii.org/papers/eubsa-swpat0202
Good luck.
Ciaran O'Riordan
Ireland has 2.5% of the votes on this issue. Not all MEPs turn up for votes like this, so if all the Irish MEPs turn up, their votes may make up a larger portion.
r tition?ipid=0&ilg=EN&iorig=home&imsg=
It's very important to convince the other countries to contact their MEPs. The all-country page for MEP listings is:
http://wwwdb.europarl.eu.int/ep5/owa/p_meps2.repa
Ciaran O'Riordan
Europeans, please do something. Phone you MEPs on Monday (or leave a message today and phone again on Monday).
l usions.htm
l
m l#pag
l
Patents are going to ruin the software industry by handing even more power to the companies that have vast bank accounts and legal team (i.e. the ones that really don't need this extra power).
Read about the affects of patents at:
http://www.softwarepatents.co.uk/
Read the UK patent office's "consultation on software patents":
http://www.patent.gov.uk/about/consultations/conc
Examples of bad or missused software patents:
http://www.base.com/software-patents/examples.htm
Bad EU patents that have already been issued:
http://swpat.ffii.org/patents/samples/index.en.ht
(these aren't really enforcable until software patents become clearly legal)
A good proposed amendment:
http://swpat.ffii.org/analysis/epc52/index.en.htm
(tell you MEPs to look at this, we have to unite with a definite proposal. Simply saying "we don't want software patents" doesn't give an MEP much to say)
Use the phone. Email is easily ignored. You'll often get answering machines so think of a short useful message to leave, mention the proposed amendment and tell them your sending them an email with the details.
Ciaran O'Riordan