Request for suggestions of DFSG-free documentation licences

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

On Sun, 03 Jun 2007, Jordi Gutierrez Hermoso wrote:
> 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?

Yes. It is my understanding that it is violating the letter of the
GFDL.

> 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.

I believe most of us agree on this point, which is why the status quo
of a work present in non-free hasn't been seriously challenged. You'll
note though, that we do not (and cannot) distribute gcc-4.1.1(7)
seprately from gpl(7); there is a versioned dependency between those
packages.

> Debian decided to make it a problem for itself and for its users.

The Developers as a whole decided that the problems with invariant
sections and the GFDL were sufficient enough to exclude them from
main. However, the maintainer (and the developers) recognized that
users may need or want such documentation, even though it does not
meet the DFSG, so the documentation was made available in non-free.

If you disagree with the determination of the Developers, you can
easily install the work from non-free, or cease supporting Debian in
its entirety. The choice is yours, really.

Don Armstrong

--
You could say she lived on the edge... Well, maybe not exactly on the edge,
just close enough to watch other people fall off.
-- hugh macleod http://www.gapingvoid.com/batch8.htm

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

--
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, Don Armstrong <don DeleteThis @debian.org> wrote:
> On Sun, 03 Jun 2007, Jordi Gutierrez Hermoso wrote:
> > Debian decided to make it a problem for itself and for its users.
>
> the maintainer (and the developers) recognized that
> users may need or want such documentation, even though it does not
> meet the DFSG, so the documentation was made available in non-free.

That's a rather unsatisfactory fix. Although it does work for most
practical purposes, the inability to ship Debian CDs with the
necessary docs is quite a hindrance. There's also the PR image of
Debian to consider, I think.

> If you disagree with the determination of the Developers, you can
> easily install the work from non-free, or cease supporting Debian in
> its entirety. The choice is yours, really.

That's unfair. I have been exclusively a Debian user since 2001.
Installing GFDLed stuff from non-free is what I do, but it's
inconvenient to track down those packages that aren't installed by
default anymore. The moralistic tone of the installation is also
problematic for me, since I'm very proud to say that all of my work is
done exclusively with free software (practically the BIOS is the only
non-free software I have to use anymore). This an important
distinction for the mathematical and scientific work that I do
(proprietary software is unscientific, etc).

"Our way or the highway" isn't a nice thought either. Do you really
think that the DDs that voted against putting the GFDL in non-free
should fork off too? Debian is the best distro out there, and I'm very
loyal to it, but I'malso very unhappy with its treatement of the
GFDL, and I think this horrible mess should be fixed.

- 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

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

On Mon, 04 Jun 2007, Jordi Gutierrez Hermoso wrote:
> On 03/06/07, Don Armstrong <don DeleteThis @debian.org> wrote:
> >the maintainer (and the developers) recognized that users may need
> >or want such documentation, even though it does not meet the DFSG,
> >so the documentation was made available in non-free.
>
> That's a rather unsatisfactory fix. Although it does work for most
> practical purposes, the inability to ship Debian CDs with the
> necessary docs is quite a hindrance. There's also the PR image of
> Debian to consider, I think.

There's nothing stoping CDs with content that you feel is free enough
being made. And frankly, being concerned with a PR image isn't a valid
reason to compromise principles. The FSF is no more interested in its
public image than Debian is. [If the FSF or Debian were, there's no
doubt that RMS, myself, and the rest of us who are non-photogenic
would have been hidden away long ago.]

> >If you disagree with the determination of the Developers, you can
> >easily install the work from non-free, or cease supporting Debian
> >in its entirety. The choice is yours, really.
>
> That's unfair. I have been exclusively a Debian user since 2001.
> Installing GFDLed stuff from non-free is what I do, but it's
> inconvenient to track down those packages that aren't installed by
> default anymore.

I agree, which is why I've personally been involved in pressuring the
FSF to resolve the remaining issues in the GFDL for quite some time.
In my opinion, recognizing the issues and getting them resolved is the
right way forward; ignoring them because they come from the FSF is
not.

> The moralistic tone of the installation is also problematic for me,
> since I'm very proud to say that all of my work is done exclusively
> with free software (practically the BIOS is the only non-free
> software I have to use anymore). This an important distinction for
> the mathematical and scientific work that I do (proprietary software
> is unscientific, etc).

Deciding to use free software is quite often a moralistic stance;
where your convictions and morals lie dictate how you feel about this
issue.

> "Our way or the highway" isn't a nice thought either. Do you really
> think that the DDs that voted against putting the GFDL in non-free
> should fork off too? Debian is the best distro out there, and I'm
> very loyal to it, but I'malso very unhappy with its treatement of
> the GFDL, and I think this horrible mess should be fixed.

If a developer is unable to accept the decision of the majority as the
decision of Debian on a particular issue, that's really all that they
can do. In the end, of course, the separation of works into main and
non-free is necessarily a judgement based on the licenses which the
works have. Anyone who disagrees with the final determination made has
the ability to decide that the packages in the archive have
incorrectly segregated, and filter the Packages.gz files in the
archive appropriately.

Regardless, in this particular case, the only way to effect the change
you are calling for is to have a GR to overturn the existing GR.
Discussion of the issue on this mailing list will not cause the GR to
disappear.

Don Armstrong

--
Debian's not really about the users or the software at all. It's a
large flame-generating engine that the cabal uses to heat their coffee
-- Andrew Suffield (#debian-devel Fri, 14 Feb 2003 14:34 -0500)

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

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

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

Jordi Gutierrez Hermoso <jordigh.RemoveThis@gmail.com> 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? [...]

Is this a joke?

Have people forgotten Wikipedia unilaterally relicensed without getting
consent from its copyright holders? See near the end of
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/05/msg00565.html
The linked emails now seem to be
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2001-October/000627.html
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2002-June/002251.html
but Wikipedia URIs are not Cool http://www.w3.org/Provider/Style/URI

Perhaps some would call this academic, but then perhaps some call any
copyright infringment which is not prosecuted an academic worry. Should
non-enforcement encourage us to ignore the expressed wishes?

> Small excerpts (e.g. an Emacs reference card from the Emacs info docs)
> are probably covered under Fair Use. [...]

This is England calling. I don't get what USians call Fair Use. The FDL
is a practical problem in several ways, including reference cards,
poison pill invariant sections and inability to fix some sections.

> [...] Debian
> really is the odd distro out here by considering GFDL docs non-free.

Not even RMS or the FSF calls the FDL a Free Software licence.

> [...]
> FSF: Er... Maybe we can work something out?
>
> Debian: What? Wait, I'm busy... There! Your filthy propaganda has
> been moved to non-free. [...]

This is wrong. Debian delayed moving FDL'd stuff to non-free for over a
year after the problem was noticed, waiting on promised FSF cooperation.
I think a full release went out in the meantime. As I understand it,
it was FSF asking us to wait because they were busy with things and then
the GPLv3.

I think the Debian project was more than willing to help resolve this
amicably, but FSF seemed determined to keep the non-free-software aspects
of FDL and was just yanking our chain. Even then, some FDL'd
material got a special approval into main.

Regards,
--
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

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

On 05/06/07, MJ Ray <mjr DeleteThis @phonecoop.coop> wrote:
> > Small excerpts (e.g. an Emacs reference card from the Emacs info docs)
> > are probably covered under Fair Use. [...]
>
> This is England calling.

Would the FSF have to sue under US law or UK law an offender in the
UK? I'm genuinely ignorant about this issue.

> poison pill invariant sections

Huh? Poison pill?

> and inability to fix some sections.

What do you want to fix? The reasons for why free software needs free
documentation or would you like to fix the suggestions on how to give
funds to the FSF? You think you know better than the FSF what funds
the FSF needs?

Since invariant sections can't be about technical matters, I really
fail to see what non-technical aspects could possibly need to be
"fixed".

> > [...] Debian
> > really is the odd distro out here by considering GFDL docs non-free.
>
> Not even RMS or the FSF calls the FDL a Free Software licence.

Of course the FSF doesn't consider the GFDL a free software licence.
That's why it recommends releasing any substantial amount of code from
a GFDLed doc under the GPL. I wouldn't call the GFDL a free software
licence; it isn't a software licence at all. But it's Debian who
insists on calling Wikipedia a software distributor (and I'm not
referring to Wikimedia, I'm referring to Wikipedia's content). Since
Debian wants to call every bitstream "software", then it feels like it
can apply the DFSG to every bitstream.

Software simply doesn't need the same freedoms as documentation, but
Debian disagrees. Perhaps it wants to modify the results of the
MOTIVATION article in the Emacs distribution in hopes of altering
reality by altering the findings of the article (yes, I'm trolling,
sorry, but the whole GFDL thing and Debian really gets my knickers in
a twist).

> non-free-software aspects of FDL and was just yanking our chain.

Debian calling the GFDL "non-free" reminds me so much of the BSD
zealots calling the GPL "non-free". This really is the stuff of
flamewars (such as this one).

- 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

Michael Poole · External Since: Apr 12, 2004 Posts: 135

Jordi Gutierrez Hermoso writes:

> On 05/06/07, MJ Ray <mjr.TakeThisOut@phonecoop.coop> wrote:
>> > Small excerpts (e.g. an Emacs reference card from the Emacs info docs)
>> > are probably covered under Fair Use. [...]
>>
>> This is England calling.
>
> Would the FSF have to sue under US law or UK law an offender in the
> UK? I'm genuinely ignorant about this issue.

The usual rule on personal jurisdiction in civil suits is that a suit
must be filed where (a) the defendant(s) reside, (b) where the alleged
tort took place or (c) in some place that the parties agreed would
have jurisdiction. Neither the GPL nor GFDL have a choice-of-venue
clause, so (c) would not apply. If the courts in (a) decline to
enforce judgments made by the courts in (b), then for practical
reasons a plaintiff would be advised to file in (a).

Similarly, the applicable law would be (a) the law of the court
hearing the case or (b) a set of law that the parties agreed to use.
Neither the GPL nor GFDL have a choice-of-law clause, so (b) does not
apply.

So, under the usual rules, a prospective plaintiff would have to sue a
UK resident in UK courts under UK law. (IANAL, TINLA, and usual rules
have seldom stopped sufficiently determined plaintiffs in the past.)

>> poison pill invariant sections
>
> Huh? Poison pill?

Poison pills are clauses or sections that make it impractical to do
certain things. The GFDL's definition of "Secondary Section" permit a
variety of poison pills, as other potential publishers or distributors
might see them.

>> and inability to fix some sections.
>
> What do you want to fix? The reasons for why free software needs free
> documentation or would you like to fix the suggestions on how to give
> funds to the FSF? You think you know better than the FSF what funds
> the FSF needs?
>
> Since invariant sections can't be about technical matters, I really
> fail to see what non-technical aspects could possibly need to be
> "fixed".

Invariant sections could have factual references that are inaccurate
or become outdated. The FSF's mailing address is one example of GPL
boilerplate that has changed several times; I have no idea if people
include that or any similar information in invariant sections.

I looked at the Emacs manual[1] to check, but -- contrary to the usage
recommendation contained in the FDL itself -- could not find a
statement as to whether it contains any invariant sections.

[1]- http://www.gnu.org/software/emacs/manual/emacs.html

Michael Poole

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

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

In message
<9543b3a40706071406j4a0e5570u6b2798fced72196c DeleteThis @mail.gmail.com>, Jordi
Gutierrez Hermoso <jordigh DeleteThis @gmail.com> writes
>On 05/06/07, MJ Ray <mjr DeleteThis @phonecoop.coop> wrote:
>> > Small excerpts (e.g. an Emacs reference card from the Emacs info docs)
>> > are probably covered under Fair Use. [...]
>>
>> This is England calling.
>
>Would the FSF have to sue under US law or UK law an offender in the
>UK? I'm genuinely ignorant about this issue.

English law.

The UK is not England. The UK does *not* *have* a legal system, as
legally it is two kingdoms, each with their constitutionally guaranteed
separate legal systems (think of it as if the US congress could pass
state laws that applied in one or other state, but could not pass laws
which applied to the entire US as a whole. Weird, I know, but it's the
system we have).

The UK (yes I know I said we don't have a legal system) is a signatory
to Berne, which merely guarantees that a foreigner has the same rights
as the locals. So, as a USian, you can sue in the UK with exactly the
same rights as a UK subject would have. Which is why, if as a UKian I
want to sue in the US, I have to register my copyright with the Library
of Congress just like you have to do.

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

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

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

"Jordi Gutierrez Hermoso" <jordigh RemoveThis @gmail.com> wrote:
> On 05/06/07, MJ Ray <mjr RemoveThis @phonecoop.coop> wrote:
> > > Small excerpts (e.g. an Emacs reference card from the Emacs info docs)
> > > are probably covered under Fair Use. [...]
> >
> > This is England calling.
>
> Would the FSF have to sue under US law or UK law an offender in the
> UK? I'm genuinely ignorant about this issue.

Others know better on the "have to" but if I can't show permission
from the copyright holder that's valid under English law, I believe
it's possible to be charged with a criminal offence (s.107 CDPA 1998
c.4 Cool

. I still need to beware English law, never mind where FSF sues.

> > poison pill invariant sections
>
> Huh? Poison pill?

As long as you can connect it with one of the six subjects allowed
to make something invariant, you can make any topic off-limits for
your text.

For GNU statistical software for example, this seems very easy to
do. Imagine starting the appendix "I first started to use this
software after someone used it to illustrate the spurious climate
change relationship, which is wrong because..." You could probably do
something similar for almost any topic. (Given the waste of paper
caused by these adverts, it could be a climate-change double-whammy.)

> > and inability to fix some sections.
>
> What do you want to fix? The reasons for why free software needs free
> documentation or would you like to fix the suggestions on how to give
> funds to the FSF? You think you know better than the FSF what funds
> the FSF needs?

No, but it may be necessary to update donation details (it may be more
tax- and fee-efficient to pass donations through a body local to the
recipient), or change the wordings for things where soliciting
donations has to be done in a certain way to be legal.

For one more general example, many charity laws have limits on "Acting
with other bodies" and political activities, which may limit what
invariant sections they can publish. Why should charities be hindered
in publishing and reusing free documentation?

> [...] But it's Debian who
> insists on calling Wikipedia a software distributor (and I'm not
> referring to Wikimedia, I'm referring to Wikipedia's content). Since
> Debian wants to call every bitstream "software", then it feels like it
> can apply the DFSG to every bitstream.

We are not alone. One example:

"We can't depend for the long run on distinguishing one bitstream from
another in order to figure out which rules apply." -- Eben Moglen, in
Free Software and the Death of Copyright.

Not that it matters:

If you agree with me that documentation can be software, you
should oppose FSF promoting this non-free software licence.

If you agree with FSF that only programs are software, you should
oppose FSF promoting this non-software licence.

I also think it's tactically inept that FSF rewards legacy
publisher corporations (some of whom were among the creators and early
supporters of Open Source, and sought to marginalise RMS) with a
licence that preserves their business model.

Hope that explains,
--
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

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

MJ Ray <mjr RemoveThis @phonecoop.coop> writes:

> "Jordi Gutierrez Hermoso" <jordigh RemoveThis @gmail.com> wrote:
> > What do you want to fix? The reasons for why free software needs
> > free documentation or would you like to fix the suggestions on how
> > to give funds to the FSF? You think you know better than the FSF
> > what funds the FSF needs?
>
> No, but it may be necessary to update donation details (it may be
> more tax- and fee-efficient to pass donations through a body local
> to the recipient), or change the wordings for things where
> soliciting donations has to be done in a certain way to be legal.

More importantly, amending the license ahead of time so that this
specific example is allowed doesn't address the root problem. The
*recipient* of the work is the one who should be deciding what changes
are appropriate for a free work; the licensor *cannot* pretend to
cover all possibilities by any means other than an unqualified "you
may make any changes to the work".

Any work with modification restrictions narrower than that is not a
free work.

--
\ "A poet more than thirty years old is simply an overgrown |
`\ child." -- Henry L. Mencken |
_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