| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
A new GPLv3 timetableA new GPLv3 timetablePosted Mar 27, 2007 14:14 UTC (Tue) by coriordan (guest, #7544)In reply to: A new GPLv3 timetable by rknop Parent article: A new GPLv3 timetable
If anyone has an issue with the GFDL, now is the time to participate in the consultation process: GFDL and GSFDL drafts and comment systems. Debian are indeed the loudest critics of the GFDL, but IIRC they still distribute all the GFDL'd manuals that every other distro does, so it's clearly not a huge issue for them. I'm not defending the GFDL, I'm against Invariant Sections, but "many" and "leery" have to be put in perspective.
(Log in to post comments)
What is the Debian situation Posted Mar 27, 2007 14:21 UTC (Tue) by coriordan (guest, #7544) [Link] I can't find Debian's current position on GFDL on their website.
Last I remembered, they decided that GFDL'd docs without invariant sections are free, but those with invariant sections are not free. Then there was another vote, and did they decide to also keep GFDL'd docs that have invariant sections until they get the next release out?
What is the Debian situation Posted Mar 27, 2007 14:39 UTC (Tue) by madscientist (subscriber, #16861) [Link] Debian's GR and results are here (this is the current position IIRC): http://www.debian.org/vote/2006/vote_001
You can find a good (isn't that redundant? :)) LWN article on it from a year ago or so here: http://lwn.net/Articles/167098/
Note that as of Debian Etch (the next release), all the GFDL documentation has been moved out of Debian proper, into the "non-free" section, and they did a lot of work to make it so... it's absolutely not true that, as the previous poster implied, this is "not a huge issue" for Debian. They have put their money on the table, so to speak.
What is the Debian situation Posted Mar 27, 2007 14:40 UTC (Tue) by madscientist (subscriber, #16861) [Link] I should be clear: they've moved all the GFDL docs that have invariant sections and/or front/back cover texts into non-free. That includes all the FSF software documentation, since the FSF requires some cover texts for all their documents.
What is the Debian situation Posted Mar 28, 2007 11:03 UTC (Wed) by cortana (subscriber, #24596) [Link] Well, that's not quite true. Some of it they simply dropped on the floor. :(
What is the Debian situation Posted Mar 27, 2007 15:13 UTC (Tue) by coriordan (guest, #7544) [Link] Aha. I found that vote, but I thought it was Etch that they delayed implementation for - it was actually Sarge. Thanks for the clarification. I stand corrected. Well, as I said, anyone who doesn't like any part of GFDL should say it where it matters, while it matters as it does now.
What is the Debian situation Posted Mar 27, 2007 19:02 UTC (Tue) by vmole (guest, #111) [Link] Why bother? During the comment period for the original GFDL, all the current objections (e.g. invariant texts, covers, and some subtle and possibly obscure issues about encrtypted copies) were raised, detailed, and discussed with RMS and the FSF. The GFDL was released more-or-less unchanged. Since then, a group of Debian people have tried to discuss this with them, and periodically claim that they will have something to report "Real Soon Now", but soon never seems to arrive. Clearly, RMS and the FSF find the objections irrelevant to their goals. That's fine, BTW: they have made a license that meets their goals. If those goals agree with yours, the use the GFDL. But what I disapprove of is the use of "Free" in the license title; it is NOT equivalent to the meaning of "Free" as used in the GPL, because there things you can do with GPL code that you cannot do with GFDL documents. Having two meanings for "free" is bad enough, adding a third doesn't help anything.
What is the Debian situation Posted Mar 27, 2007 21:19 UTC (Tue) by coriordan (guest, #7544) [Link] Why bother? Well, people who complained about FSF's responsiveness in the GFDL process have praised their responsiveness in the GPLv3 process, so maybe something changed.
What is the Debian situation Posted Mar 27, 2007 21:43 UTC (Tue) by vmole (guest, #111) [Link] I will be pleasantly surprised if this turns out to be the case. Pure speculation: RMS wanted a license for "his" (FSF) documents that would prevent people from removing the propaganda[1] and (re-)publishing only the technical bits, and doesn't care if anyone else uses it. Thus the lack of response to other's concerns. OTOH, he wants/needs the GPL3 to be widely adopted, and thus is being more flexible. [1] FWIW, I'm pretty much in agreement with his argumements. I'd have picked a less loaded term than "propaganda" if I could come up with one.
A new GPLv3 timetable Posted Mar 27, 2007 18:32 UTC (Tue) by k8to (subscriber, #15413) [Link] To reiterate, GFDL documents with invariant sections are considered non-free, by Debian and by me, as they do not meet the Debian Free Software Guidelines. As a result, things such as the man pages for gcc are *not* in Debian, because they are unfree. They are stored in the non-free section of Debian, which means they are installable by users who explicitly choose to acquire the non-free lists of packages, and who explicitly choose to install the gcc documentation which is not pulled in by the gcc software. Similar situations are repeated for most GNU tools.
As an aside, one of the invariant sections is the GFDL text itself, and some accompanying text. This means that this huge slab of irrelevant text must be either included in all man pages, greatly reducing their usability, or must be installed (as the license allows) as a seperate gfdl manpage, which is referenced. Having manpages which are not actually manuals for anything offends my sysadmin sensibilities, so I've actually gone so far as to create a fake package which replaces these manuals with no files at all, thus circumventing this silly requirement. I may be in violation of the GFDL, but perhaps remain safe so long as I do not distribute my installation.
|
|
||||||||||||