Similarity with the spirit of the GNU project [LWN.net]

Similarity with the spirit of the GNU project

Posted Mar 3, 2010 13:09 UTC (Wed) by nix (subscriber, #2304)
In reply to: Similarity with the spirit of the GNU project by lxoliva
Parent article: Linux-2.6.33-libre released

Well, obviously what RMS did with TeX was 3) declare that a project that
requires you to change its name and the name of all its font files and all
the references to such files within all documents, or requires you to add
an elaborate mapping mechanism to allow such changes without impact (which
was eventually done) *is* nonetheless free.

The TeX license is sufficiently far from free that special clauses had to
be inserted into the DFSG and other such definitions specifically to
grandfather it in.

(Log in to post comments)

DFSG is not the Free Software definition

Posted Mar 4, 2010 5:18 UTC (Thu) by lxoliva (subscriber, #40702) [Link]

DFSG is a bunch of rules that the Debian community came up with, in an attempt to create measuring points to indicate whether or not a piece of software complies with the Free Software Definition, i.e., whether the user of the software isn't being denied the 4 freedoms over the software. Don't mistake the shadow in the cavern for the real thing.

So let's see how the constraints posed by requirements of the TeX license get in the way of the 4 freedoms:

#0: run the software for any purpose: no conflict here

#1: study the source code and adapt it so that it does what you wish: no conflict here

#2: distribute the software, as you received it, whenever you wish: no conflict here

#3: improve the software, and distribute your improvements: gotta do a bit more work to rename the files, but that's about it, nothing significantly different from replacing easily-replaced logos and trademarks in any piece of Free Software.

So, no grandfathering as far as the Free Software definition is concerned. That the DFSG needed adjustments is just more evidence that it wasn't (and still isn't) equivalent to the FSD. That the DFSG was corrected, rather than insisting on a divergence, is a good sign that the people in charge took it for what it is (a set of heuristics), rather than as the essence.

DFSG is not the Free Software definition

Posted Mar 5, 2010 0:11 UTC (Fri) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]

Er, they had to rename the files and *write a complete filename mapping
layer to compensate for that renaming*. This was *not* a small job :/ I'd
say that after that mapping layer was written, it was free and useful:
before that, it may have been free but the freedom was not much use to
anybody.

Mapping layer for compatibility

Posted Mar 5, 2010 4:42 UTC (Fri) by lxoliva (subscriber, #40702) [Link]

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that this remapping layer was not somethng demanded by the software license. Renaming files and fixing internal references to it would be enough to meet the requirements of the license and to distribute fully-functional software.

The catch, if you can call it that, is that pre-existing programs (documents) that referenced the file names that were no longer there would no longer just work on the modified software. They'd have to be mechanically modified as well.

I won't get into the debate of whether exposing internal implementation details as part of the public API is a good idea, even more so when these details must be modified when the progarm changes. However, nobody prevented the modifiers from implementing a script to make the needed changes, all mechanical, and the fact that it could be done in lower internal layers of the modified software, rather than as user-visible API changes, goes to support, rather than detract, from the fact that the original software was indeed Free, and I only bring this up because someone might make a successful case that, if it wasn't so, then some important freedom was missing.

Having the freedom doesn't mean its enjoyment has to be effort-free. Even the most permissive licenses carry some requirements with them, as light as keeping copyright notices intact and not removing the copy of the license. Copyleft licenses are more demanding, but none of the requirements, by themselves or taken as a whole, prevent you from enjoying any of the freedoms (although the combination of those requirements with others one might have accepted may have that effect, which makes it copyleft).

Some trademark issues have similar effects to those in TeX, but that the requirements are enough of a pain that some people set out to replace all the trademarks and logos ahead of time, to be able to keep that out of their minds in subsequent relevant modifications, is, to me, an indication that the freedom is there, just not so trivially accessible.

I like the metaphor that respecting someone else's freedom is not giving her a ride to the place she wants to go, but rather refraining from placing or keeping unsurmountable roadblocks on her way.

So I stand by my understanding that TeX is Free Software, just like Firefox is Free Software. If Debian read its heuristics in such a way that it reached a different conclusion, and (assuming) for this reason alone it set out to create IceCat, may an indication that the tide is turning, and that the essence is being lost and the heuristics taking over. If that is so, it is very sad. OTOH, it may very well also be that Debian just needed to make the changes and figured sharing it with others was the best way to go. If that is so, it is very good.