Weekly Edition
Return to the Front pageSponsored link
Vyatta –
Linux & Open Source
Alternative to Cisco –
Advanced Routing,
Firewall, VPN, QoS..
Free Download ->
| |||||||||||
The coming Debian GFDL collision
The Debian Project's discomfort with the GNU Free Documentation
License (GFDL) has been clear for some time. To Debian developers (and
many others), the GFDL is not a free license for a few reasons:
See the Debian position statement on the GFDL for more information on why the project objects to this license. Debian developer Anthony Towns recently circulated a proposal for a general resolution (since updated) on the GFDL. The resolution would reiterate the project's objections to the license, and generally bring the issue back into the foreground. Previously, the developers had agreed to let GFDL-licensed documentation slide so as to not delay the Sarge release. That release is now out, and the Etch release is planned for December of this year. As things stand now, the project will not be able to release Etch until all non-free documentation has been removed - and that situation is unlikely to change. The Debian folks would like to see this problem solved by the FSF, which could make it vanish by releasing an updated version of the GFDL. The transparent copy and DRM items seem amenable to easy fixes, leaving only invariant sections to worry about. Even in the absence of a change of heart on invariant sections, fixing the other issues would make documents which lack such sections free. Tweaking the GFDL to allow the removal of invariant sections would solve the problem completely. Given that version 3 of the GPL is due to be unveiled (in draft form) on January 16, it is probably safe to assume that the FSF is not devoting a great deal of attention to tweaking the GFDL at this time. The FSF has, in fact, proved quite resistant to making any changes to that license even when there weren't other things going on. So a new GFDL before the scheduled Etch release seems unlikely. So, it is probable that there will be a mass purge of GFDL-licensed documentation from the core Debian distribution. That documentation will then languish in the non-free area, where Debian folks will routinely sneer at it. This purge will affect any free software project whose code is shipped by Debian, and which has documentation licensed under the GFDL. As it happens, there are a couple of smallish projects which fit that description, called KDE and GNOME. Both of these projects will have to find a way to address Debian's concerns, or see its code shipped without the accompanying documentation. The projects are starting to think about this issue. Recently, Jordi Mallach posted a call for discussion on the GNOME desktop-devel list, and Isaac Clerencia posted a very similar message to kde-devel. In fact, the messages are so similar that one must conclude that the level of cooperation between the two projects is higher than generally imagined. In both cases, two options are presented: (1) create new documentation-free tarballs, or (2) relicense or dual-license the existing manuals so that Debian will see them as being free. The dual-licensing idea is the one which is recommended. The initial response in both projects has been somewhat unsympathetic to the Debian project's position. It seems fair to say that quite a few developers (and authors) don't really see a problem in need of a solution - especially since neither project makes use of invariant sections. A GNOME developer suggested that it was up to the Debian project to either get the GFDL changed or to deal with every author to get the licensing changed on their works. A KDE developer has flat-out refused to consider dual-licensing his work. There are people in both camps who have problems with the GFDL, but it appears that bringing about a licensing change will be hard to do. So there does not appear to be an immediate solution at hand, and the chances are good that Etch will ship without a great deal of documentation. Debian Etch users will have to get their GNOME and KDE manuals at the same time they stock up on MP3 encoders, libdvdcss, and that Flash plugin they swear they never use. It's not the end of the world; that documentation remains readily available. But it is an example of what can happen when we are not sufficiently careful in our choice of licenses. Picking the wrong license can lead to trouble down the road, and it can be a hard choice to change. This episode could also have been avoided if the FSF had been a bit more responsive to the feedback it sought when the GFDL was released in draft form. Most of the objections one hears now were voiced then, but they had no effect on the final wording of the license. One can only hope that the GPLv3 project, which begins next week, will produce a more generally-acceptable final result. The stakes in that case are significantly higher. (Log in to post comments)
The coming Debian GFDL collision Posted Jan 12, 2006 3:45 UTC (Thu) by pynm0001 (subscriber, #18379) [Link] I'd like to point out that KDE provides online documentation for all ofthe documentation normally included within a source module. http://docs.kde.org/ One proposal that has been floated is for Debian to install a vendor patch for KDE 3.5 to automatically pull the documentation for an application from docs.kde.org when not available on-disk. The issue is that such code would actually need to be written. :( There's other proposals as well but they all seem to entail a lot of work. Regards, - Michael Pyne
Wikipedia Posted Jan 12, 2006 3:50 UTC (Thu) by bk (guest, #25617) [Link] Virtually the entirety of Wikipedia is licensed under the GFDL (with no invariant sections or cover texts). I'm not aware of any formal audit, but I'd be willing to bet that usage on Wikipedia (approaching 1 million articles) vastly outnumbers usage of the license elsewhere, so when discussing the GFDL we're really discussing wikipedia and free information in general.A significant minority of wikipedians formally dual-license their work as GFDL and some other, usually simpler license like Creative Commons ShareAlike. The problem, though, is that very few articles are wholly created by a single person who could assert legal copyright. Most articles are frankenstein-like creations of many dozens or hundreds of editors. I'm not sure who could be considered the authoritative copyright holder (and, therefore, the one able to grant license) in such situations.
Wikipedia Posted Jan 12, 2006 9:55 UTC (Thu) by ekj (subscriber, #1524) [Link] True. On the other hand - the invariant sections is the most problematic aspect of the GFDL. So being "GFDL without invariant sections" is a whole lot better than being just GFDL. though both has a few problems for sure.
Wikipedia Posted Jan 12, 2006 15:17 UTC (Thu) by mepr (guest, #4819) [Link] but the fundamental problem with using a non-free license whose non-free section is that you have to trust the document writers to never change their mind.
Wikipedia Posted Jan 12, 2006 22:34 UTC (Thu) by roelofs (subscriber, #2599) [Link] but the fundamental problem with using a non-free license whose non-free section is that you have to trust the document writers to never change their mind.Hmmm. "The fundamental problem with using the GPL is that you have to trust the software writers to never change their mind." I always thought you simply continued to distribute the old version, forking it if/when you wanted to make changes... Authors can't retroactively change their minds about the licenses under which they previously distributed material. (If they could, any of us whose BSD-licensed software landed in MS Windows--for example--could do so and then get an injunction prohibiting further distribution of the larger work until the offending components were removed. I don't think you'll find too many legal systems that are willing to buy that argument.) Greg
Wikipedia Posted Jan 12, 2006 9:58 UTC (Thu) by ekj (subscriber, #1524) [Link] In the case where a copyrigthed work is created by several authors, each one gets the copyrigth, assuming his contributions are significant enough to warrant copyrigth in the first place.It's not a question of finding *the* one "authoritative" copyrigth-holder, there isn't one. It's the same with the Linux Kernel. Even if it was true that Linus has contributed the most to the kernel (I don't know if that *is* true, nor how to measure "most" in this context) that *still* wouldn't make him "the authoritative copyright holder". Copyrigth-law simply doesn't work like that.
Agreed, but Posted Jan 12, 2006 18:05 UTC (Thu) by Ross (subscriber, #4065) [Link] There are actually multiple things under copyright: the individual pieces of code, plus the compilation and arragement of them. Linus might be said to own the compilation copyright of the kernels he releases, if the kernels meet the requirements for a compilation copyright (IANAL so I don't know if they do).
Wikipedia Posted Jan 13, 2006 10:31 UTC (Fri) by piman (subscriber, #8957) [Link] Debian doesn't really care about distributing Wikipedia; we're talking about things like the GCC, Emacs, and GNOME manuals, which make the operating system possible to use. Wikipedia would be a nice benefit, but it's not the main goal.
The coming Debian GFDL collision Posted Jan 12, 2006 4:25 UTC (Thu) by joey (subscriber, #328) [Link] A couple of wrong/misleading things in this article include:
"That documentation will then languish in the non-free area, where Debian folks will routinely sneer at it."
It's actually possible to find that comment a bit insulting..
"In fact, the messages are so similar that one must conclude that the level of cooperation between the two projects is higher than generally imagined."
Or that Jordi Mallach and Isaac Clerencia are, in addition to their involvements in Gnome and KDE, both Debian developers..
"same time they stock up on MP3 decoders"
Which are included in Debian main.
There's also a rather large backstory of a committe in Debian who has been trying to work with the FSF on this issue for years that was left out of the article, although I forget how much of that is publically known.
The coming Debian GFDL collision Posted Jan 12, 2006 13:56 UTC (Thu) by corbet (editor, #1) [Link] It wasn't my intent to insult anybody, apologies if offense was taken.With regard to Jordi and Isaac being Debian developers, I thought that was fairly well obvious. It was just fun to see the same message sent to both groups. I didn't say much about the shadowy Debian/FSF committee because it's mostly heard about in rumor form, and, in any case, it seems unlikely (to me, anyway) that this committee will bring about changes in the GFDL before the Etch release.
The coming Debian GFDL collision Posted Jan 12, 2006 15:41 UTC (Thu) by vmole (subscriber, #111) [Link] Well, as a long-time Debian Developer, I thought the "sneer at it" comment was funny, and pretty obviously meant as such.
Regarding the committee to re-educate the FSF, the reality is that over a two year period, the only result is the occasional "we are working on it, and the FSF has promised to respond Real Soon Now", usually in response to a move to remove all the GFDL docs from Debian main. A cynical person might suspect that they are being used by the FSF to avoid the final cut.
The coming Debian GFDL collision Posted Jan 13, 2006 7:01 UTC (Fri) by coriordan (guest, #7544) [Link] It seems biased to paint the talks between FSF and Debian as "Debian trying to work with FSF", but at the least, such as statement should be put in context: "after ignoring FSF for a decade on the issue of distributing proprietary software".
Debian-FSF Interactions Posted Jan 14, 2006 14:26 UTC (Sat) by kevinbsmith (subscriber, #4778) [Link] Based on what I have seen, the GFDL interaction between Debian and the FSF has been mostly Debian making suggestions and the FSF ignoring them, so the "trying to work with" bit seems accurate to me.
I couldn't follow the last half of the post. It sounds like you are saying that Debian was distributing proprietary software for a decade despite complaints from the FSF. Surely that's not what you meant.
Debian-FSF Interactions Posted Jan 14, 2006 14:33 UTC (Sat) by kevinbsmith (subscriber, #4778) [Link] Ah. Reading ahead, I see that you were probably referring to the "non-free" section. In that context, the second half of your post makes more sense.
Note to self: Read ALL the comments before replying to any one of them.
a choice quote from the gnome thread Posted Jan 12, 2006 9:31 UTC (Thu) by coriordan (guest, #7544) [Link] Debian still distributes non-free software in the sections "contrib" and "non-free", downloadable from the official resources. If it was a campaign for freedom, these unethical sections would have been removed long ago.
a choice quote from the gnome thread Posted Jan 13, 2006 10:33 UTC (Fri) by piman (subscriber, #8957) [Link] It's a campaign for both freedom and honesty. If you want only free software, you use Debian main. And similarly, Debian doesn't lie to you and put non-free software in main. Unfortunately, that's not true right now.
a choice quote from the gnome thread Posted Jan 13, 2006 15:31 UTC (Fri) by cortana (subscriber, #24596) [Link] I wish the Debian developers would act as assiduously with respect to the handling of other non-free software that is currently in main (namely, Mozilla and derivatives) as they do with mere documentation.
a choice quote from the gnome thread Posted Jan 13, 2006 15:19 UTC (Fri) by cortana (subscriber, #24596) [Link] Contrib consists of Free Software that merely depends on non-free software. If contrib were to be removed then to avoid hypocrisy, Debian should drop support for all its current architectures, in favour of a hypothetical new architecture that is 100% Free. :)
a choice quote from the gnome thread Posted Jan 13, 2006 15:55 UTC (Fri) by coriordan (guest, #7544) [Link] This sounds like a "We can't be perfect, so we shouldn't try". Deleting the non-free repositry would be a step toward freedom, and ignoring contrib would make Debian's free software work easier.
Whether or not all architectures contain a certain amount of proprietary software does not prevent Debian from taking the above two forward steps.
BTW, I'm a happy Debian GNU/Linux user, have been for the last 5 years or so, and amn't considering changing. The software I use is all free software, but I would like to be able to recommend Debian to others as a wholly free software OS.
a choice quote from the gnome thread Posted Jan 19, 2006 17:19 UTC (Thu) by joeytsai (guest, #3480) [Link] This sounds like a "We can't be perfect, so we shouldn't try". While your suggestions are sound, aren't your arguments just as relevant with their attempt at removing the GFDL? Removing the problematic documentation should help them move towards "perfection", or a wholly free OS.
Treat the invariant sections issue separately Posted Jan 12, 2006 17:39 UTC (Thu) by JoeBuck (subscriber, #2330) [Link] It will be very difficult to get RMS to concede any ground on the invariant sections issue. The reason goes back to all the wars he fought over the years, to Eric Raymond and his allies' attempts to write RMS out of history and blackball him from conferences that would try to educate the business world on "open source", and the like -- the OSI folks were saying (to paraphrase) "Don't listen to him, he mattered at one time but he's just a hairy radical from Cambridge and we're business-friendly libertarians". He sees what he's doing as a movement, doesn't really appreciate the extent to which he's already won, and he wants to use the FSF's manuals to advertise the cause. I think he's wrong, but I respect his point of view, even though it's somewhat inconsistent with his basic message.That said, the other two issues Debian has raised should be resolvable. The DRM section, I think, is just sloppily drafted, and I see no reason why acceptable language couldn't be worked out. The transparent/opaque copies section also could probably be worked out, by allowing the transparent copies to be provided in the same way the source code is provided by the GPL. If we can resolve two out of three of the issues in a revised GFDL, then while the GCC manual will not be DFSG-free, the Gnome and KDE documentation will be, as will many other manuals, and etch will still have a lot of documentation.
Treat the invariant sections issue separately Posted Jan 12, 2006 18:54 UTC (Thu) by cventers (subscriber, #31465) [Link] Yeah, when I first started working my way into the community I started tonotice the whole ESR vs RMS thing, and while I can say I don't necessarily agree in full with RMS about the invariant sections thing, I don't blame him. Curious... I don't mean to entice any bad feelings or flame wars, but whatever happened to ESR these days? The last I heard of him in the press was when he said the GPL was pointless. The last I heard of him afterwards was when he sent a very colorful insult to a Microsoft recruiter that happened across his INBOX.
ESR became a warblogger Posted Jan 14, 2006 7:26 UTC (Sat) by JoeBuck (subscriber, #2330) [Link] Most of his blogging activity in the last 1.5 years has been devoted to flogging the War Against Islamofascists. He seems to have little time for open source anymore.
I think he's already said he'll remove invariants Posted Jan 12, 2006 19:41 UTC (Thu) by coriordan (guest, #7544) [Link] (I realise this is an addition to what you were saying, not a contradiction)
I heard a recording of a post-talk Q & A session and when an audience member asked if he'd fix the GFDL by fixing the invariant sections issue, he gave some kind of positive (but non-committing, as to be expected) response. My memory's not clear (and neither was the recording), and I don't remember which recording it was.
Then he noted that for 2006, GPLv3 is the priority.
are you sure you heard him right? Posted Jan 14, 2006 7:05 UTC (Sat) by JoeBuck (subscriber, #2330) [Link] If so, RMS must have had a recent change of heart; last time I asked him about it he was passionate on the issue, and he saw it as attempts by others to censor him.
Treat the invariant sections issue separately Posted Jan 20, 2006 9:27 UTC (Fri) by Peter (guest, #1127) [Link] That said, the other two issues Debian has raised should be resolvable. The DRM section, I think, is just sloppily drafted, and I see no reason why acceptable language couldn't be worked out. You'd think so, wouldn't you? And yet the Debian Project has had delegates talking to the FSF about these issues for years now, with no (public) result. If the FSF had wanted to fix those "other" bugs in the GFDL, it's not like they haven't had time. At some point you have to conclude you're being strung along.
FSF's viewpoint anyone? Posted Jan 12, 2006 19:55 UTC (Thu) by wilck (subscriber, #29844) [Link] A short explanation of the FSF's point of view would have been nice in this article. This is not the first article about this Debian/FSF debate where I find Debian's arguments broadly explained but hardy anything about the reasons the FSF has not to accept Debian's suggestions. I've read JoeBucks comment but that's rather along "listen, you have to understand poor old RMS" lines. I can't believe that FSF would officially state "we need invariant sections because ESR was a mean guy to RMS". The FSF is more than just RMS. Did the FSF really never repond to the criticism? The Debian position statement says "This means that you can't legally extract text from a GFDL'ed manual and put it into integrated help strings in a GPL'ed program". If that's true, the FSF itself would violate either the GPL or the GFDL by including the emacs documentation in the emacs online help! I find that pretty hard to believe. Could anybody shed some light upon this please?
FSF's viewpoint anyone? Posted Jan 12, 2006 20:10 UTC (Thu) by kmccarty (subscriber, #12085) [Link] Well, (I assume that) the FSF is the copyright holder on both Emacs and the Emacs documentation, which means they can license both however they like. It is not possible to violate your own copyright! What it means is that a third party who adds a new paragraph to the Emacs docs and distributes this modified version (under the GFDL) cannot cut-and-paste the new paragraph into a modified version of Emacs that they distribute under the GPL. The third party could, however, sign over ownership of the new paragraph to the FSF which would then be able to incorporate it in both places.
FSF's viewpoint anyone? Posted Jan 16, 2006 2:39 UTC (Mon) by xoddam (subscriber, #2322) [Link] The portions of the emacs manual which are distributed as part of emacs(which is nowhere near all the emacs manual, incidentally) are obviously dual-licenced, as you can get them from the emacs source under GPL. Your example isn't quite right. A 'third party' that wants to add a paragraph *both* to the official documentation and to the program doesn't have a problem. If, however, it was a 'second party' (or the FSF itself) that added a paragraph which it distributed with the whole manual under GFDL, a third party could not then copy the paragraph without the attendant Invariant Sections into the GPL program. Debian would like, at the very least, a general provision in the GFDL allowing extracts of GFDL documentation to be distributed as part of GPL software.
FSF's viewpoint anyone? Posted Jan 16, 2006 15:00 UTC (Mon) by corbet (editor, #1) [Link] You cannot get the emacs manual under GPL. Not any recent version of it, at least; it was relicensed to the GFDL. A year or two ago some folks from the xemacs asked to be able to do so, and were turned down by RMS.
FSF's viewpoint anyone? Posted Jan 13, 2006 16:02 UTC (Fri) by pimlott (subscriber, #1535) [Link] Joe Buck gave an illustrative example of why RMS feels strongly about invariant sections, but it is not just about "ESR was a mean guy to RMS". Indeed, the FSF has had similar clauses in their documentation licences since long before the Open Source flap. What it's really about is 1. RMS feels very strongly about the importance of spreading his philosophy (indeed, the GPL itself has an "invariant output" clause to this end, 2c); and 2. he considers (quite rightly in my mind) that the ethical considerations for programs and documentation are different, so that it is acceptible to place a few extra restrictions on distributing modified documentation. RMS has explained these beliefs himself.
FSF's viewpoint anyone? Posted Jan 15, 2006 0:34 UTC (Sun) by zblaxell (subscriber, #26385) [Link] My copy of the GPLv2 clause 2c reads like this:If the modified program normally reads commands interactively when run, you must cause it, when started running for such interactive use in the most ordinary way, to print or display an announcement including an appropriate copyright notice and a notice that there is no warranty (or else, saying that you provide a warranty) and that users may redistribute the program under these conditions, and telling the user how to view a copy of this License. (Exception: if the Program itself is interactive but does not normally print such an announcement, your work based on the Program is not required to print an announcement.)I don't see the word "invariant" there...it just describes the nature of the output, and doesn't require identical copying of any particular text. In fact, it explicitly allows changing the text if you are (or are not) providing a warranty.
FSF's viewpoint anyone? Posted Jan 16, 2006 6:13 UTC (Mon) by pimlott (subscriber, #1535) [Link] I don't see the word "invariant" thereI put it in quotes to suggest that the spirit of GPL 2c (from the FSF's perspective) is similar to invariant sections in the GFDL, in that there is some specific message the modified program must convey; even though as you say it need not be preserved verbatim. The required announcement can be seen as a political statement (not just a legal statement). Anyway, I didn't mean to suggest more than a rough analogy.
The coming Debian GFDL collision Posted Jan 12, 2006 20:13 UTC (Thu) by bradh (subscriber, #2274) [Link] The rationale for my "flat out refused" (which is a little stronger thanwhat I wrote, see the link) is that the GFDL without invariant sections and cover texts (i.e. the standard KDE documentation license) is, in my opinion, a free license for documentation. Other options were not as good (Debian refused to accept most of the Creative Commons. Debian wanted GPL which makes no sense for documentation, but would take other licenses which either were not copyleft, or had other issues). So no change, thanks. BTW: The anti-DRM part doesn't mean what some of the Debian zealots think it means. It means what RMS intended, and he intended to protect the readers who get a copy of the documentation. If Redhat or Novell or IBM had asked for a license change, we wouldn't be considering it. Debian is not a special case.
The coming Debian GFDL collision Posted Jan 15, 2006 1:44 UTC (Sun) by zblaxell (subscriber, #26385) [Link] The DRM section and Debian's objection to it comes down to just a few words:You may not use technical measures to obstruct or control the reading or further copying of the copies you make or distribute.So we want to allow:
On the other hand, context matters. I assume that eavesdroppers and others who do not lawfully acquire a copy don't automatically get GFDL, GPL, or any other copyright license rights. If we didn't make that assumption, then everyone in the world has the right to crack their way into my laptop and grab the slightly modified GPL-licensed kernel sources I'm running, since the GPL text says I must provide the modified source code under the GPL to anyone who gets a copy from me. This single assumption covers many of the Debian objections. No restriction exists if I make an encrypted copy of a document and distribute it to someone who already has the decryption key and the tools required to use it, and I don't interfere with the user's efforts to put the two together. This is what usually happens in network encryption cases like VPNs and SSL. I could just as easily ROT13 the document, compress it, or otherwise transform it through algorithms that are well known, widely implemented, and legally unencumbered. While the GFDL clearly prevents the distributor from imposing further restrictions on reading and distribution, it says nothing about the recipient until the recipient in turn becomes a distributor. That means that once you have received the document, you are free to make as many restrictions as you like, as long as they don't involve copies of the document. I do agree with Debian's analysis here--the text really should read "make and distribute", since the current text "make or distribute" seems to imply that your system backups must be public.
The coming Debian GFDL collision Posted Jan 13, 2006 5:44 UTC (Fri) by paulmfoster (subscriber, #17313) [Link] Debian needs to get off its high horse. I use Debian, but I've been turned off by its continually eating away at its own distribution by removing first this, then that section of the distro. I've tried arguing with Debianistas about this, but they appear to be as stubborn as RMS. Debian needs to revise its constitution or whatever so that they don't continually have a reason to be destructively introspective about the software they include. Besides, it seems quite hypocritical to say, "Oh, we can't include that because it's non-free", and then go ahead and include it on its distribution CDs and mirrors (non-free). If you're going to be that puritanical about your distro, then go ahead and go all the way. Make everyone get their non-free stuff elsewhere. The rise of *Debian-based* distros tells you what Debian's doing wrong. And this constant hacking off of pieces of Debian is part of that.
The coming Debian GFDL collision Posted Jan 13, 2006 14:17 UTC (Fri) by wookey (subscriber, #5501) [Link] No, high horses are important. Debian and RMS/FSF are what some people would call 'bloody minded and intransigent' for very good reasons (the same reasons in fact, near as dammit).
Someone has to be, and in this case it's most unfortunate that we are where we are. Using the existence of non-free to deny the problems of the GFDL doesn't really help anyone. They are separate issues, althogh clearly both relating to the general issue of software freedom. As piman said, non-free is at least clear and honest: 'this software is non-free', and you don't have to use it (in fact I find I don't use it on nearly all my machines these days).
The problems with the GFDL are real, and I think many people at the FSF see that too. Their policy on copyright assignment insulates them from a big chunk of the difficulty, but for any third party GFDL docs cannot be excerpted and used in other docs without making them non-free.
This is a big deal. Debian, and the whole free software movement has been built on the GPL, which does a great job of balancing freedoms and restrictions to produce what many of us think of as genuine freeness. This ought to make the GFDL the obvious companion licence for docs, and it is a huge disappointment to many that it has turned out to be a licence that has got the balance wrong. Both Debian and the FSF want much the same thing, and I am very disappointed that more than 2 years of discussion between sensible people has not managed to resolve this issue. I haven't been involved in these discussions, so can't comment in any detail on what has gone on, but it does seem to me that the problems Debian points out are real, and that the only way to fix them is to change/update the GFDL (only small changes are needed).
2 years is a long time in computing and Debian can't wait forever. In order to remain honest to its users Debian has to move GFDLed stuff out of main. I'm interested in the thoughts of, for example, the KDE people who say that they don't agree with the analysis, and that the GFDL (with no invariant sections) is a free licence. I sincerely wish that were true, but I can't see it myself.
"genuine freeness" Posted Jan 16, 2006 19:42 UTC (Mon) by wilck (subscriber, #29844) [Link] Debian, and the whole free software movement has been built on the GPL, which does a great job of balancing freedoms and restrictions to produce what many of us think of as genuine freeness. This ought to make the GFDL the obvious companion licence for docs... Debian and the FSF obviously have different concepts of what "freeness" means for documentation. "free" and "freedom" are among today's most heavily abused terms. People can mean just about anything when they say "free". Some people consider the GPL itself "non-free" because it forbids them to create proprietary derived works. And even in our community the ideas about the meaning of "genuine freeness" differ. Personally, I don't see that the limitations the GFDL imposes are so harsh that it justifies Debian's crusade. Unfortunately, the debate has gone on for so long that no party can just give in easily. It is frustrating to see that two of the most important organizations of our community engage in this endless debate. What the Linux documentation needs is translations, not this kind of never-ending fight.
The coming Debian GFDL collision Posted Jan 17, 2006 8:02 UTC (Tue) by jae (guest, #2369) [Link] I've seen quite a few "get off your high horse" posts, which all translate to "don't be so strict about non-free, just put all that in main")
The day you people get your way (which hopefully will never happen) will be the day Debian *truly* dies. I know principles, and ideals, are less and less "en vogue" (if there ever were, beyond lip service), but I for one am happy that there are people and organizations who do still have ideals they are actually following.
If you don't like Debian, don't use Debian Posted Jan 19, 2006 8:32 UTC (Thu) by stuart (subscriber, #623) [Link] If you want Debian without the DFSG and Debian constitution, use Ubuntu.
I made the choice of Debian a long time ago because of the quality of its packaging and managment tools. I wanted that cool apt-get thing. Now, having been a purely Debian user for just over 6 years, I wouldn't change away for the simple reason, I like and applaud Debian's stance on non-free software, licenses, document, artwork, whatever. As others have said, someone has to stand up for these issues.
If you don't think Debian should be firm on these issues, you're entitled to your opinion of course, but just vote with your feet and use Ubuntu / RH / Suse / Gentoo rather than bashing Debian.
Correction, and comments on "The coming Debian GFDL collision" Posted Jan 19, 2006 10:36 UTC (Thu) by slef (subscriber, #14720) [Link] The page referred to as "the Debian position statement ..." is actually accurately titled "draft Debian position statement ...". So, Anthony Towns's proposal would be the first position statement on the issue. That said, the draft position is widely-known and seems to be supported by the relevant debian officers.
There is a good DRM section in the Creative Commons Scotland licences, which is in plain English and allows the use of secured media as long as you don't restrict freedoms (by giving a copyable version alongside, for example).
Some words like "sneer" and "purge" seem unnecessarily inflammatory. It's a shame if LWN has to troll to get comments.
I guess a third possibility is that GNOME and KDE supporters actually write manuals that are free software.
The FDL invariant section problem seems to be incompatible goals: RMS said his goal is to make sure the GNU Manufesto is distributed, as in
With any luck, the GPLv3 will be better, but the secretive and divisive drafting process, and the heavy emphasis on Corporate USA in the press releases, worries me that hackers can be marginalised.
|
|||||||||||