Request for suggestions of DFSG-free documentation licences

Shriramana Sharma · External Since: Sep 26, 2006 Posts: 10

Hello list.

I remember reading that the GFDL is not DFSG-free (due to some clauses
regarding invariant sections or something) so I would like to know what
is a DFSG-free license for documentation, since a project I am working
on wants to license its documentation in a DFSG-free way.

Thanks.

Shriramana Sharma.

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-REQUEST RemoveThis @lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster RemoveThis @lists.debian.org

Ben Finney · External Since: Jun 02, 2006 Posts: 125

Shriramana Sharma <samjnaa.DeleteThis@gmail.com> writes:

> I remember reading that the GFDL is not DFSG-free (due to some clauses
> regarding invariant sections or something)

The Debian project is in the strange situation that a license which
has many freeness issues[0] has been voted explicitly free without
supporting reasoning -- similar to the act of legislating that the
value of pi is exactly 3, regardless of mathematics to the contrary.

In particular, the specific case of a work under GFDL without exercise
of any of the clauses specifying non-modifiable document sections has
been voted by general resolution[1] to meet the DFSG, despite all the
arguments to the contrary. The general resolution unfortunately gave
no guidance on how to interpret this outcome, and many voters were
likely tired of the protracted debates on the topic so perhaps saw it
as a way to avoid the discussion.

Note that most documentation from the GNU project *does* exercise
those particular clauses, and so is not covered by this general
resolution.

The consensus (not unanimous, but consensus nonetheless) of
debian-legal is that the DFSG, regardless of which of its clauses are
exercised, is non-free for any software, including documentation.

> so I would like to know what is a DFSG-free license for
> documentation, since a project I am working on wants to license its
> documentation in a DFSG-free way.

Choose a single, free license to cover all the software: programs,
data, documentation, all of it. That is the simplest way to ensure
that all the software is free.

[0] http://people.debian.org/~srivasta/Position_Statement.xhtml
[1] http://www.debian.org/vote/2006/vote_001

--
\ "Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored." -- |
`\ Aldous Huxley |
_o__) |
Ben Finney

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-REQUEST.DeleteThis@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster.DeleteThis@lists.debian.org

Ben Finney · External Since: Jun 02, 2006 Posts: 125

"Wesley J. Landaker" <wjl RemoveThis @icecavern.net> writes:

> On Tuesday 22 May 2007 08:09:33 Ben Finney wrote:
> > The consensus (not unanimous, but consensus nonetheless) of
> > debian-legal is that the DFSG, regardless of which of its clauses are
> > exercised, is non-free for any software, including documentation.
>
> (I assume you meant "GFDL" here instead of "DFSG".)

My apologies, yes. "... the GFDL ... is non-free for any software,
including documentation" was my intended meaning.

> It's stretching quite a bit to call it consensus, but anyway, given
> that the GPL and other good Free Software licenses can work
> perfectly fine for both software and documentation, there isn't much
> reason IMO to use the GFDL.

Indeed. If you're in the position of deciding the license for all the
software in the package, just use one license that applies to each
file, and the issues become much simpler.

--
\ "Laugh and the world laughs with you; snore and you sleep |
`\ alone." -- Anonymous |
_o__) |
Ben Finney

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-REQUEST RemoveThis @lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster RemoveThis @lists.debian.org

MJ Ray · External Since: Jun 02, 2005 Posts: 273

Shriramana Sharma <samjnaa.RemoveThis@gmail.com> asked:
> I remember reading that the GFDL is not DFSG-free (due to some clauses
> regarding invariant sections or something) so I would like to know what
> is a DFSG-free license for documentation, since a project I am working
> on wants to license its documentation in a DFSG-free way.

The same free software licence as the rest of the project's software.

More comments on FDL http://mjr.towers.org.uk/blog/2006/fdl#dfsg
--
MJR/slef
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-REQUEST.RemoveThis@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster.RemoveThis@lists.debian.org

Marco d'Itri · External Since: Jan 21, 2005 Posts: 129

samjnaa DeleteThis @gmail.com wrote:

>I remember reading that the GFDL is not DFSG-free (due to some clauses
>regarding invariant sections or something) so I would like to know what
As long as you do not use these optional clauses it is free like any
other DFSG license.
OTOH, you should ask yourself what is the point of choosing the GFDL
over other more common licenses like the GPL.

--
ciao,
Marco

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-REQUEST DeleteThis @lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster DeleteThis @lists.debian.org

Shriramana Sharma · External Since: Sep 26, 2006 Posts: 10

Thanks for all your feedback, but the GPL also has some clauses that are
not applicable to documentation as pointed out at:

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#WhyNotGPLForManuals

I thought of using the Boost license:

http://boost.org/LICENSE_1_0.txt

but it is not listed at:

http://wiki.debian.org/DFSGLicenses

so I am wondering whether it is OK or not. I will start a separate
thread for that.

Shriramana Sharma.

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-REQUEST RemoveThis @lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster RemoveThis @lists.debian.org

Nathanael Nerode · External Since: Dec 14, 2004 Posts: 174

Shriramana Sharma <samjnaa DeleteThis @gmail.com> wrote:
>Thanks for all your feedback, but the GPL also has some clauses that are
>not applicable to documentation as pointed out at:
>
>http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#WhyNotGPLForManuals

Debian does not agree with the FSF opinion on this. The FSF's opinion
is basically an excuse to allow their "invariant sections", which Debian
considers unacceptable. The FSF severely exaggerates in order to
promote the GFDL.

The GPL is a very suitable license for manuals in electronic form -- in
electronic form, we *do* want source code for our manuals (troff, TeX,
whatever). In addition, it is *extremely* valuable for the manual to be
licensed under the same license as the program. *Extremely* valuable.
This makes it far, far easier for people to move online help into the
manual and back, and the same with comments in the code.

The GPL contains some clauses which are somewhat irritating for
*printed* manuals *only*. Debian does not think that this is a problem,
as Debian does not distribute printed manuals (the user can always
print them himself).

If the manual has a single copyright holder (your company,
perhaps), the copyright holder can always print and sell the manual,
period, without restrictions, end of story; the copyright holder
doesn't need a license to do so.

If you plan to use work copyrighted by other people in the manual, and
you want to make printed copies; or if you want to make it easy for
*other people* to make printed copies and sell them; then you can
dual-license the manual under the GPL and a printing-friendly license.

If this is the same company which is licensing its software under a dual
GPL-and-proprietary model, I think it probably makes the most sense for
your company to simply license the manual under the GPL. This means
that your company is the only one which can distribute *printed* copies
of the manual without attaching a CD, diskette, or offer to provide source
code. Some people will probably be willing to pay for the
professionally printed copies. Smile

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-REQUEST DeleteThis @lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster DeleteThis @lists.debian.org

Anthony W. Youngman · External Since: Nov 02, 2004 Posts: 26

In message <20070525155548.GA24993.TakeThisOut@bitsy-cocoa.dyndns.org>, Nathanael
Nerode <neroden.TakeThisOut@fastmail.fm> writes
>If this is the same company which is licensing its software under a dual
>GPL-and-proprietary model, I think it probably makes the most sense for
>your company to simply license the manual under the GPL. This means
>that your company is the only one which can distribute *printed* copies
>of the manual without attaching a CD, diskette, or offer to provide source
>code. Some people will probably be willing to pay for the
>professionally printed copies. Smile

Note that, in the UK at least, adding a "free" CD jacks up the cost of a
printed manual/book significantly. Given that a typical O'Reilly sells
for between £20 and £40, adding a CD will also add about £5 tax to the
price (books are VAT-free, adding a CD makes the *entire* *package*
liable to 17.5% tax).

Cheers,
Wol
--
Anthony W. Youngman - anthony.TakeThisOut@thewolery.demon.co.uk

Ben Finney · External Since: Jun 02, 2006 Posts: 125

Shriramana Sharma <samjnaa DeleteThis @gmail.com> writes:

> Thanks for all your feedback, but the GPL also has some clauses that
> are not applicable to documentation as pointed out at:
>
> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#WhyNotGPLForManuals

If you re-read that section, it mostly addresses the FSF's desire for
you to use their problematic FDL for documentation. Other messages in
this thread have already pointed you to the problems for using the
FDL.

The only part in that section that actually addresses the GPL is:

=====
The GPL was designed for programs; it contains lots of complex clauses
that are crucial for programs, but that would be cumbersome and
unnecessary for a book or manual. For instance, anyone publishing the
book on paper would have to either include machine-readable "source
code" of the book along with each printed copy, or provide a written
offer to send the "source code" later.
=====

The "lot of complex clauses ... that would be cumbersome and
unnecessary" is greatly outweighed by the huge simplification that
comes from having *all* software in a package -- programs,
documentation, data -- licensed the same way, as already addressed in
this thread.

The only specific example given of a problem for the GPL applied to
documentation is the requirement for the recipient to have access to
the source. When distributing the package electronically, this is
obviously no more a problem than for any other part of the
software. When printing the book, a written offer to provide the
source on request is sufficient.

In summary: Please consider that section to be contrary to
debian-legal's opinion of licensing. It's the view of most people on
this list -- even most of those who *don't* see a problem with the FDL
-- that it is still better to license all software in a package under
the same license terms. If you want to choose the GPL for this,
there's no problem with, and great convenience from, licensing all the
software under those terms.

--
\ "Kill myself? Killing myself is the last thing I'd ever do." |
`\ -- Homer, _The Simpsons_ |
_o__) |
Ben Finney

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-REQUEST DeleteThis @lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster DeleteThis @lists.debian.org

Jordi Gutierrez Hermoso · External Since: Oct 31, 2006 Posts: 46

On 25/05/07, Ben Finney <bignose+hates-spam@benfinney.id.au> wrote:
> The "lot of complex clauses ... that would be cumbersome and
> unnecessary" is greatly outweighed by the huge simplification that
> comes from having *all* software in a package -- programs,
> documentation, data -- licensed the same way, as already addressed in
> this thread.

I keep hearing about how important it is to have everything licensed
the same way because you can't move GGPL code into a GFDL manual or
move code from the GFDL manual into a GGPL manual (extra G added on
GPL just for fun). I don't understand. The GFDL allows free
modification of code (since it's a technical section, can't be
invariant), so what's the big deal? Moreover, the document that
describes how to apply GFDL even suggests itself to license code in
the manual under the GPL, if this code is substantial (which it rarely
is; I can't think of a GNU manual that has any considerable amount of
code that can't already be extracted and used under the terms of the
GFDL).

I have strong disagreements with Debian's treatment of the GFDL (and
it makes us Debianistas look like fundamentalist wackos to the rest of
the free software world), but perhaps those are concerns for another
time. I just don't see why it's such a problem to have "software", as
Debian calls documentation, with different licenses for intended
different usages.

- Jordi G. H.

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-REQUEST RemoveThis @lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster RemoveThis @lists.debian.org

Ben Finney · External Since: Jun 02, 2006 Posts: 125

Jordi, please follow the code of conduct for the mailing lists
<URL:http://www.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct>.
Specifically, don't send a separate copy of list messages to me, as I
haven't asked for that.

"Jordi Gutierrez Hermoso" <jordigh.TakeThisOut@gmail.com> writes:

> I keep hearing about how important it is to have everything licensed
> the same way because you can't move GGPL code into a GFDL manual or
> move code from the GFDL manual into a GGPL manual (extra G added on
> GPL just for fun). I don't understand. The GFDL allows free
> modification of code (since it's a technical section, can't be
> invariant), so what's the big deal?

The GPL also requires that any derivative work that one distributes
must be licensed under the GPL terms. This is incompatible with taking
part of a work under a different license and combining it with the GPL
work to distribute.

If all the software in the package was licensed under the GPL, then
parts of the documentation could be mixed freely with the programs,
and vice versa, to create a derived work to distribute; the same
license terms apply to all of the software so the GPL terms are met.

> Moreover, the document that describes how to apply GFDL even
> suggests itself to license code in the manual under the GPL, if this
> code is substantial (which it rarely is; I can't think of a GNU
> manual that has any considerable amount of code that can't already
> be extracted and used under the terms of the GFDL).

The document author, by placing only *some* parts of the work under
the GPL, is essentially determining for the recipient what parts they
will find useful to combine with other parts of the software. Prose
descriptive parts could be combined into the data, for instance; if
the license does not allow this, an essential freedom is denied.

On the other hand, if the author acknowledges that *any* part of the
work could be useful for some recipient to combine with other parts of
the work, *even if the author can't conceive of it initially*, then
the logical thing to do is to license all parts of the work under the
same terms.

Further, when parts of a work licensed under GPL are combined into the
FDL-licensed work, the result is *not redistributable at all*, because
the GPL says the resulting work must be entirely licensed under GPL,
which conflicts with the FDL work's license terms.

> I have strong disagreements with Debian's treatment of the GFDL (and
> it makes us Debianistas look like fundamentalist wackos to the rest
> of the free software world), but perhaps those are concerns for
> another time. I just don't see why it's such a problem to have
> "software", as Debian calls documentation, with different licenses
> for intended different usages.

Hopefully you now have a better understanding of some of the
problems. There are others, that have been covered elsewhere in this
thread.

--
\ "If you do not trust the source do not use this program." -- |
`\ Microsoft Vista security dialogue |
_o__) |
Ben Finney

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-REQUEST.TakeThisOut@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster.TakeThisOut@lists.debian.org

Sanjoy Mahajan · External Since: Dec 24, 2004 Posts: 31

Nathanael Nerode <neroden RemoveThis @fastmail.fm> writes:
> The GPL contains some clauses which are somewhat irritating for
> *printed* manuals *only*. Debian does not think that this is a
> problem, as Debian does not distribute printed manuals (the user can
> always print them himself).

Agreed. Similarly, if you distribute physical hardware containing GPL
code, you must obey the same requirements (to provide source on a
CDROM, etc, or give a written offer to provide source on a CDROM etc).
And that's okay but, as you say, not ideal.

So I prefer the GPLv3 drafts (in sec. 6) because they allow Internet
distribution of the source, even when the object code or executable is
distributed in a physical medium (e.g. a printed manual or a router).

-Sanjoy

`If we are fortunate, Republicans will complete their self-destruction
before they extinguish the Constitution and destroy America.'
--Paul Roberts, former assistant Treasury Secretary under Reagan

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-REQUEST RemoveThis @lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster RemoveThis @lists.debian.org

Ben Finney · External Since: Jun 02, 2006 Posts: 125

Ben Finney <bignose+hates-spam@benfinney.id.au> writes:

> The GPL also requires that any derivative work that one distributes
> must be licensed under the GPL terms. This is incompatible with
> taking part of a work under a different license and combining it
> with the GPL work to distribute.

This is true only, of course, if the other license prevents changing
the license of the whole work to GPL. This is the case for FDL, which
is the "other license" in question in this thread.

--
\ "'Did you sleep well?' 'No, I made a couple of mistakes.'" -- |
`\ Steven Wright |
_o__) |
Ben Finney

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-REQUEST.RemoveThis@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster.RemoveThis@lists.debian.org

Adam Borowski · External Since: May 22, 2006 Posts: 84

On Sun, May 27, 2007 at 10:15:06AM +1000, Ben Finney wrote:
> The document author, by placing only *some* parts of the work under
> the GPL, is essentially determining for the recipient what parts they
> will find useful to combine with other parts of the software. Prose
> descriptive parts could be combined into the data, for instance; if
> the license does not allow this, an essential freedom is denied.
>
> On the other hand, if the author acknowledges that *any* part of the
> work could be useful for some recipient to combine with other parts of
> the work, *even if the author can't conceive of it initially*, then
> the logical thing to do is to license all parts of the work under the
> same terms.
>
> Further, when parts of a work licensed under GPL are combined into the
> FDL-licensed work, the result is *not redistributable at all*, because
> the GPL says the resulting work must be entirely licensed under GPL,
> which conflicts with the FDL work's license terms.

There are no real solutions except:
* boycotting one of the licenses (easy to tell which one) whenever you have
the chance to do so (ie, mostly as upstream)
* bashing the FSF until they merge GPL and GFDL

Of course, as a maintainer you usually can't do anything but complain, or
look the other way at contamination incidents. Which are quite common --
even "foo --help" is likely to be one. And looking the other way, while
popular, can't be called the most sound advice...

--
1KB // Microsoft corollary to Hanlon's razor:
// Never attribute to stupidity what can be
// adequately explained by malice.

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-REQUEST DeleteThis @lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster DeleteThis @lists.debian.org

Jordi Gutierrez Hermoso · External Since: Oct 31, 2006 Posts: 46

On 26/05/07, Ben Finney <bignose+hates-spam@benfinney.id.au> wrote:
> Jordi, please follow the code of conduct for the mailing lists
> <URL:http://www.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct>.
> Specifically, don't send a separate copy of list messages to me, as I
> haven't asked for that.

Oops, sorry. I forget. Other non-Debian mailing lists have different
codes of conduct.

> "Jordi Gutierrez Hermoso" <jordigh.TakeThisOut@gmail.com> writes:
[snip]
> > GFDL
[snip]
> > what's the big deal?

On 26/05/07, Ben Finney <bignose+hates-spam@benfinney.id.au> wrote:
> The GPL also requires that any derivative work that one distributes
> must be licensed under the GPL terms.
>
[snip]
> The document author, by placing only *some* parts of the work under
> the GPL, is essentially determining for the recipient what parts they
> will find useful to combine with other parts of the software.
[snip]
> Further, when parts of a work licensed under GPL are combined into the
> FDL-licensed work, the result is *not redistributable at all*,
[snip]
> Hopefully you now have a better understanding of some of the
> problems.

Kinda, but not really. It seems that Debian's objections against the
GFDL are highly academic and unlikely to arise in practice. I mean,
how many of those objections have actually worked against Wikipedia,
the largest collection of "software" (as Debian calls it) under the
GFDL? In practice, the GFDLed docs can be copied and modified as much
as they need to be; the further modifications Debian claims they need
are not needed; invariant sections are *tiny* in comparison with the
rest of the GNU manuals and relatively as visible as attribution and
copyright clauses that have to go into free software anyways.

Small excerpts (e.g. an Emacs reference card from the Emacs info docs)
are probably covered under Fair Use. I doubt that the FSF would sue
for GFDL compliance because someone made a small Emacs reference card
without the invariant section. Also, it just doesn't make sense to
modify some things, e.g. the news article previously distributed with
Debian's Emacs by permission of the author, but that doesn't mean that
it can't be useful and even freedom-abiding to distribute such
unmodifiable content. And then we have stuff like the GSL docs with
eight pages of invariant sections, six of which are license texts
which are already invariant anyways as previously discussed in this
list (and no, I'm not going to file a bug against gsl-doc-pdf because
two pages out of a total of 490 endorse free documentation; you go
ahead and do it yourself if you wish).

Perhaps the clause intended to work against DRM was vague, but again,
is the FSF going to sue anyone because they encrypt their own hard
drive and just happen to have GFDLed docs in the hard drive? At any
rate, the GFDL's DRM clause has gotten clarified for GPLv3.

Heck, even OpenBSD, who argue that the GPL isn't free enough to put it
into the OpenBSD kernel and who are strong freedom advocates in their
own way like Debian and the FSF, even OpenBSD thinks that the GFDL is
good enough for distribution alongside with free software. Debian
really is the odd distro out here by considering GFDL docs non-free.

Just as the FSF is accused of endorsing the GFDL so that it can put in
there its invariant sections, I have my own caricature of Debian in
this regard:

THE DEBIAN / GFDL FIASCO
A most lamentable tragedie of Incompatible Philosophies
in three ackts

A producktion of the debian-legal players with special
collaboration by Jordi G. H.

ACKT 1:

FSF: Here you go! Have a GNU manual. You can give it to anyone
and you can modify it just like you can modify GNU
software. We also have it in a format that's comfortable for
modification, for your benefit.

Debian: Great! We'll put it in our repositories with the rest of
the other nifty GNU products. Isn't it fantastic you and I are
such good friends?

ACKT 2:

FSF: Oh, by the way, free software needs free documentation, here
is how you can contribute to the GNU project and this is what the
GNU project is all about. Spread the word!

Debian: Whoa, wait a minute there, mate. How dare you attempt to
impose your fascist hippie tree-hugging communist philosophy on
us? Non-free, non-free, NON-FREE!

ACKT 3:

FSF: Er... Maybe we can work something out?

Debian: What? Wait, I'm busy... There! Your filthy propaganda has
been moved to non-free. Ha! Now when users type "man gcc" they
get "No manual entry for gcc. See 'man 7 undocumented' for help
when manual pages are not available." That's it, no further
clarification or explanation as to why what's seemingly an
essential manpage for an essential package and which should be
there according to our very own policy manual is missing. None of
that! Only confused users and essential software
undocumented. How do you like that, corrupter of youth?

FSF: Well, I must say --

Debian: SILENCE, ENEMY OF LIBERTY! You have until the next
version of your license to make everything under the sun
modifiable. Until then, we're not talking about this matter any
further.

CURTAIN

Like I said, I don't like Debian's position on the GFDL very much. Smile

- Jordi G. H.

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-REQUEST.TakeThisOut@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster.TakeThisOut@lists.debian.org

Ben Finney · External Since: Jun 02, 2006 Posts: 125

"Jordi Gutierrez Hermoso" <jordigh.TakeThisOut@gmail.com> writes:

> In practice, the GFDLed docs can be copied and modified as much as
> they need to be

The DFSG requires that *any* modification be allowed to the work, and
that the result be redistributable under the license. This is not the
case for the FDL, and certainly not for works combining GPL and FDL
covered works.

> the further modifications Debian claims they need are not needed;

Fortunately, the DFSG is drafted to let the *recipient* decide what
modifications they need to make to the work.

> invariant sections are *tiny* in comparison with the rest of the GNU
> manuals

We're not discussing GNU manuals. We're discussing works under the
FDL, a license that is available for anyone to apply to their works.

> I doubt that the FSF would sue for GFDL compliance

Again, the FDL is available for any party to apply to their work, so
speculation as to what the FSF would or would not do doesn't seem to
be relevant here.

> Also, it just doesn't make sense to modify some things

Fortunately, the DFSG requires that works be licensed such that the
recipient of the work can decide what modifications make sense.

--
\ "I filled my humidifier with wax. Now my room is all shiny." |
`\ -- Steven Wright |
_o__) |
Ben Finney

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-REQUEST.TakeThisOut@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster.TakeThisOut@lists.debian.org

Adam Borowski · External Since: May 22, 2006 Posts: 84

On Sat, Jun 02, 2007 at 07:16:30PM -0500, Jordi Gutierrez Hermoso wrote:
> Kinda, but not really. It seems that Debian's objections against the
> GFDL are highly academic and unlikely to arise in practice. I mean,
> how many of those objections have actually worked against Wikipedia,
> the largest collection of "software" (as Debian calls it) under the
> GFDL?

Except, the main block, the only one which cannot be ignored with optimistic
interpretation, has been specifically excluded from Wikipedia.

Please read the part about invariant sections on
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyrights -- in a quite convoluted
way they say "you may add invariant sections and cover text only if they're
neither invariant when it's technically possible to change them, nor
unremovable, nor placed on cover of any kind". Ie, you can't have them.

>
> THE DEBIAN / GFDL FIASCO
> A most lamentable tragedie of Incompatible Philosophies
> in three ackts

Please. If that's not mindless flamebait, I don't know what is.
And s/ackts/acts/g.

--
1KB // Microsoft corollary to Hanlon's razor:
// Never attribute to stupidity what can be
// adequately explained by malice.

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-REQUEST DeleteThis @lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster DeleteThis @lists.debian.org

Jordi Gutierrez Hermoso · External Since: Oct 31, 2006 Posts: 46

On 03/06/07, Adam Borowski <kilobyte.RemoveThis@angband.pl> wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 02, 2007 at 07:16:30PM -0500, Jordi Gutierrez Hermoso wrote:
> > Kinda, but not really. It seems that Debian's objections against the
> > GFDL are highly academic and unlikely to arise in practice. I mean,
> > how many of those objections have actually worked against Wikipedia,
> > the largest collection of "software" (as Debian calls it) under the
> > GFDL?
>
> Please read the part about invariant sections on
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyrights -- in a quite convoluted
> way they say "you may add invariant sections and cover text only if they're
> neither invariant when it's technically possible to change them, nor
> unremovable, nor placed on cover of any kind". Ie, you can't have them.

Yes, so how has the GFDL hurt Wikipedia? And how the hell are you
going to justify adding an invariant section to Wikipedia since the
breadth of its content is all of human knowledge and invariant
sections can only deal with subject matter that is not related to the
main subject of a GFDLed doc?

I have yet to see a practical example of a situation that actually
happened that justifies Debian's concerns against the GFDL. In the
meantime, "man gcc" still says here that gcc has no manpage, contrary
to Debian policy.

- Jordi G. H.

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-REQUEST.RemoveThis@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster.RemoveThis@lists.debian.org

Don Armstrong · External Since: Jan 24, 2005 Posts: 253

On Sun, 03 Jun 2007, Jordi Gutierrez Hermoso wrote:
> I have yet to see a practical example of a situation that actually
> happened that justifies Debian's concerns against the GFDL.

The practical example is the fact that we cannot make extracts of
GFDLed documentation even for manpages without including the text of
the GFDL and any invariant sections from the manual.

This in itself is why we do not have GFDLed manpages.

Don Armstrong

--
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity.
-- Robert Heinlein

http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-REQUEST.RemoveThis@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster.RemoveThis@lists.debian.org

Jordi Gutierrez Hermoso · External Since: Oct 31, 2006 Posts: 46

On 03/06/07, Don Armstrong <don.DeleteThis@debian.org> wrote:
> On Sun, 03 Jun 2007, Jordi Gutierrez Hermoso wrote:
> > I have yet to see a practical example of a situation that actually
> > happened that justifies Debian's concerns against the GFDL.
>
> The practical example is the fact that we cannot make extracts of
> GFDLed documentation even for manpages without including the text of
> the GFDL and any invariant sections from the manual.

So you're saying that the current gcc*doc* package in non-free that
places the invariant sections in a separate manpage is violating the
GFDL? Or is placing the invariant pages in a separate manpage not an
extract of GFDL documentation? Seems to me that it *is* an extract and
that supplying both gcc (1) and fsf-funding (7) adheres to the GFDL.
Indeed, this almost the path that OpenBSD has followed too.

There's no practical benefit from removing an insignifcantly small
invariant section from a large document except for a desire to not
distribute FSF propaganda. If you create a small excerpt from a large
GFDL document, you can probably omit the invariant section per Fair
Use policies.

This isn't a real problem. The FSF isn't going to be enacting legal
action against OpenBSD or all the other distros who created a gcc
manpage from the info docs. Debian decided to make it a problem for
itself and for its users.

- Jordi G. H.

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-REQUEST.DeleteThis@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster.DeleteThis@lists.debian.org