GFDL does not... [LWN.net]

GFDL does not...

Posted Mar 4, 2005 5:34 UTC (Fri) by komarek (guest, #7295)
In reply to: GFDL does not... by TxtEdMacs
Parent article: A day in the life of emacs

That Richard wants to maintain control over work for which he has the copyright, is not akin to being a dictator in general. The FSF policy is GFDL, and that is what covers the GNU Emacs manual.

That the fellow from XEmacs asked RMS to "reconsider" his enforcement or selection of this license is interesting, and gutsy. But the tone of that fellow's post was "maybe you can compromise, and hence mend some fences". This seems a bit unlikely:

1) RMS doesn't compromise on his projects. He decides. He seems to care little or nothing for convenience, and principal is everything.

2) Attempts to mend fences in the past have never made any headway. Unless the XEmacs team has something to offer (perhaps soliciting the approval of some XEmacs copyright holders, in order to adjust the licensing), then XEmacs has nothing.

3) And let's not forget: GNU Emacs was the first Emacs. Derivitive works of Emacs that hid their modifications are *the motivation* for the creation of the GPL. RMS discovered that not everyone believed in the golden rule, and some who did would still sign NDA's that prevented them from following it. After being taken advantage of, RMS found a way to defend himself and his work: copyleft. XEmacs is one of these derivatives, one with a long history.

As I understand it, licensing issues prevent XEmacs from contributing improvements back to Emacs. That XEmacs is open at all is nice, but that doesn't help the mother of XEmacs (which is Emacs, before GNU Emacs, iirc). RMS is upset that anyone would ever violate the golden rule, and treat their neighbors poorly. Maybe that's life, but that doesn't mean RMS has to accept the status quo.

I really don't understand the dictator argument. It seems similar to those arguments that compare Red Hat to Microsoft. RMS is not trying to take over the world. He isn't trying to take over anything. He is trying to defend his work, and the work entrusted to the FSF. He also tries to help those who share his priorities and morals (through FSF legal support, for example).

The GNU/Linux debacle is unfortunate. I wish RMS would have said "I will call it GNU/Linux, because it appears to me as the GNU system plus Linus Torvald's excellent kernel." But he didn't. And doesn't. In trying to make his point about the GNU project remaining relevant, and in trying to keep the name of GNU alive where GNU software is used, he has said some strange things. But his actions have *never* been dictatorial, as far as I recall. And his actions are worth far more than his words.

-Paul Komarek

(Log in to post comments)

Principals

Posted Mar 4, 2005 19:35 UTC (Fri) by Ross (subscriber, #4065) [Link]

I'm fine with someone sticking to their principals above convenience. In
fact, that's one of the best attributes of RMS.

But I don't see how _not_ "sharing the software" is really part of his
principals. The GFDL is obviously not Free the same as the GPL. RMS has
said this is because documentation is different than software and the rights
which empower software users are not the same for documentation. I have
never found that to be a convincing argument.

And to the best of my knowledge XEmacs is under the GPL just like Emacs.
The reason that GNU won't take patches from it is because they want copyright
assignments which is of course their perogative but it is unfair to act as
if XEmacs is withholding improvements from others.

Principals

Posted Mar 4, 2005 20:13 UTC (Fri) by komarek (guest, #7295) [Link]

I see that you are right about the GPL, and I agree then that the problem is probably copyright assignment. Now that it's not so late at night, I've taken the time to read http://www.xemacs.org/About/XEmacsVsGNUemacs.html, and this verifies the copyright assignment problem.

Back to the original reason I posted, sp_ware's comment that RMS wants to be a dictator still seems wrong and ignorant. That he set up the FSF and GNU projects, and gave up his copyrights to the FSF, suggests strongly that he does not want to be a dictator. Any disdain he shows for competing Free software could easily come from disliking the waste of effort of duplication (that xemacs link above quotes him on this, w/r/t XEmacs).

Thank-you for pointing out my mistake.

-Paul Komarek

GFDL does not...

Posted Mar 4, 2005 20:45 UTC (Fri) by TxtEdMacs (guest, #5983) [Link]

quote: "... Richard wants to maintain control over [his] work ..."

I have NO problem with that, however, RMS has problems with other people making control decisions with software (and perhaps even documentation) which he was neither the creator nor the maintainer.

That smacks of a dictatorial temperament, regardless of the fact of whether he lacks the power of enforcement of his decrees.

I have instances in mind, but too many details can lead to a nasty tenor so it is better to cease here.