LWN: Comments on "The Grumpy Editor's guide to free documentation licenses"

The Grumpy Editor's guide to free documentation licenses

Wol — Thu, 04 Nov 2004 08:58:10 +0000

Whoops - I didn't say what exactly that jurisdiction was. It's pretty clearly mine, the UK.

Cheers,
Wol

The Grumpy Editor's guide to free documentation licenses

Wol — Thu, 04 Nov 2004 08:56:16 +0000

I'll give you an example of a jurisdiction where there is no *statutory* concept of "fair use".

In practice we get away with it under common law (and bringing lawsuits is expensive - the doctrine of "loser pays" and "plaintiff pays for nuisance suits" means prosecution is unlikely).

As an example - I make a "fair use" quote. The copyright owner sues me. I offer to pay the value of the work. The owner is now in a dilemma. If he accepts my offer, he's paid hundreds of pounds of court fees and got tens of pounds in copyright fees back (I don't have to pay his costs). If he *doesn't* accept my offer, and then the judge/jury accept my offer as reasonable, he not only has to pay *his* legal costs, but *mine* *as* *well*.

Lawsuits just don't happen under those sorts of rules ...

Cheers,
Wol

preferred form

giraffedata — Fri, 29 Oct 2004 20:37:58 +0000

Yeah, I've always hated the "preferred form" standard.

What we really want is just to stop someone from withholding the source code that he has as a means of stopping others from building on his work.

The requirement should be that you have to make available what you worked with to make the file you distributed. If you typed in a .o file with a hex editor, the .o is all you have to provide. If you used a special in-house markup language that you machine-translated to latex and then to dvi and then to Postscript that you distribute, you should have to provide the in-house markup on request.

The Grumpy Editor's guide to free documentation licenses

piman — Thu, 28 Oct 2004 22:39:19 +0000

More problematic is the case where the program itself contains significant portions of its documentation, like LaTeX or Emacs. In these cases, you need to move arbitrary text between the documentation and the program, not just code samples.

The Grumpy Editor's guide to free documentation licenses

piman — Thu, 28 Oct 2004 22:36:05 +0000

> Did you read the OP?

Why are you so confrontational? Of course I read the original article -- I quoted it, and responded to it.

> It said "a work without invariant sections and without cover texts" is considered free. The context gives a reasoning - because then all the work can be changed and that is considered "free by most persons".

And I'm asking Jon why he thinks that. Most people I know who have looked at the FDL either come to the conclusion it's all free, or even documents without invariant sections are still non-free because of the issues I cited.

> Then you jump to a related, but different topic and write about "work with invariant sections and with cover texts" and you use "is still free" as an implication that the editor meant that.

I what? I thought my point was clear, but let me try again: In my experience dealing with the FDL, I find people who either consider it free, with or without invariant sections, and people who consider it non-free, with or without invariant sections. I do not find people who fit the editor's assertion of "most people", that think it's free without invariant sections but non-free with them. On the rare instances I do talk to such people, they are usually totally unaware of the DRM clause, and change their mind after learning about it.

> I would have never had the patience of Frank or David to discuss license issues with people who insult developers with every email they write.

I'm sorry you feel that way about some Debian developers. I have nothing but respect for the achievements of the LaTeX team, and apologize if you feel I insulted your efforts in any way. Not all Debian developers, even those on debian-legal, are Andrew Suffield.

Do not count out the FDL for your next book

atai — Thu, 28 Oct 2004 22:16:24 +0000

Never say never :-)

The Grumpy Editor's guide to free documentation licenses

jschrod — Thu, 28 Oct 2004 14:45:29 +0000

I don't understand your post, or maybe I do... Did you read the OP? It said "a work without invariant sections and without cover texts" is considered free. The context gives a reasoning - because then all the work can be changed and that is considered "free by most persons". Your reply starts with a personal account of people you know, but without any context and any arguments. Then you jump to a related, but different topic and write about "work with invariant sections and with cover texts" and you use "is still free" as an implication that the editor meant that.

He wrote explicitly about that topic. So, why do you raise that straw man? Just to post the Debian link? You might have just done so, with a subject line "Debian viewpoint" or similar, that would have been better and more honest, IMNSHO.

Joachim

Disclaimer: As a member of the LaTeX team, I'm biased when it comes to the Debian Legal folks or on any Debian viewpoint on "free licenses". I would have never had the patience of Frank or David to discuss license issues with people who insult developers with every email they write. They're more hilarious than rms, and that's sometimes hard to do.

The Grumpy Editor's guide to free documentation licenses

dvrabel — Thu, 28 Oct 2004 09:09:19 +0000

Code examples in documentation should surely be public domain? They're supposed to be copied and incorperated in other programs. Perhaps the documentation license needs a clause making this explicit.

The Grumpy Editor's guide to free documentation licenses

dmantione — Thu, 28 Oct 2004 06:54:00 +0000

They do not exist in the EU, which is a larger market than the US. Instead the US has quotation rights, which allow you to quote from a document. It is a lot more restrictive than fair use.

The Grumpy Editor's guide to free documentation licenses

JoeBuck — Thu, 28 Oct 2004 05:07:55 +0000

Such assertions are demonstrably wrong. Without fair use, you couldn't quote even the tiniest portion of a copyrighted work, or even read aloud (what? you are performing the work without the explicit permission of the copyright holder!) and I know of no country where people fear prosecution for quoting one line of a book. That shows that everyone has some concept of fair use, even if they don't call it that.

GFDL not good for free-software documentation

hmh — Wed, 27 Oct 2004 23:50:57 +0000

Indeed. Whatever the GFDL at its current form is, it is NOT a Good Thing when applied to free software documentation, unless we are talking about "external" documentation, such as books.

The GFDL has its place, even as it is now. But that place is well away from any free software project.

The Grumpy Editor's guide to free documentation licenses

bfields — Wed, 27 Oct 2004 19:02:12 +0000

my point is that the prefered form for editing is going to be different for different people on the same document. it's a very nebulous term, far more so then for programs where there's a very obvious difference between source code and the binary result.

There are cases where it may not be clear which the preferred form is. There are also very common cases where it is quite clear (you probably don't hand-edit the postscript produced by latex/dvips or the average wordprocessor).

I'm having a hard time seeing how ambituity in the choice of preferred format is likely to cause a real problem in any case--the case we really want to prevent is someone modifying documentation and then claiming they only need provide you with some obfuscated version (nothing but the output of xfig->latex->dvips->ps2pdf for you!), in which case there's not really any ambiguity.

The Grumpy Editor's guide to free documentation licenses

dlang — Wed, 27 Oct 2004 18:07:01 +0000

GPL version 3 is going to have some problems in solving the problem. while the 'default' GPL license is 'GPLv2 or newer' there are a number of projects (including the linux kernel) that are 'GPL v2' instead and it's going to be practicly impossilbe to get hold of all the authors to get them to agree to re-license these projects under a new license, even if that license is GPLv3

The Grumpy Editor's guide to free documentation licenses

dlang — Wed, 27 Oct 2004 18:02:34 +0000

my point is that the prefered form for editing is going to be different for different people on the same document. it's a very nebulous term, far more so then for programs where there's a very obvious difference between source code and the binary result.

if yu had a programming toolchain that had you write your program in language A, run a tool that converted it into fully commented source code for language B, run a second tool that converted it into fully commented source code for language C, and then converted the result into machine code you could concievably prefer to modify the program in language B or C instead of A that the origional author used and it would be a far closer match to the documentation situation

The Grumpy Editor's guide to free documentation licenses

kimoto — Wed, 27 Oct 2004 16:44:38 +0000

On debian-legal, it is often asserted that there are jurisdictions where there is no such thing as "fair use". (IANAL so can't pass judgment on that.)

The Grumpy Editor's guide to free documentation licenses

JoeBuck — Wed, 27 Oct 2004 16:37:31 +0000

It is a problem. Short code examples can be included based on "fair use" even when the licenses conflict, but anything more substantial cannot be moved from a GPL'd file collection to a GFDL'd file collection or vice versa without all the copyright holders agreeing to a license change.

For example, you might like the example calculator program in the Bison manual; you might want to take it, enhance it a bit, and distribute it. But you can't mix it with any GPL'd code, and you might need a lawyer to help you figure out what you have to do to distribute the executable.

Do not count out the FDL for your next book

JoeBuck — Wed, 27 Oct 2004 16:31:38 +0000

I've known, worked with, and argued with RMS for many years, and I wish I could agree, but I'm not hopeful. The Debian objections to the GFDL have been out for at least a year; moves to fix the problems have not made any progress.

There are two classes of problems with the GFDL: one class are technical difficulties, and the other class are fundamental differences of opinion. The DRM-related problems, one could argue, are just mistakes that could be corrected without anyone losing face. It appears that the goal was to prevent people from using DRM to make an allegedly-free document uncopyable; it would suffice to say that if you provide a DRM copy, you have to tell people how to get an unencumbered copy. Some of the other issues Debian has complained about can also be solved without too much difficulty.

The invariant sections issue, though, is one that I can't imagine RMS giving any ground on. I'm afraid that the best we'll be able to do is get a fixed GFDL in which a document that lacks invariant sections and cover texts could be agreed by everyone to be free. Then everyone could agree that, for example, the Gnome documentation is free.

RMS has also suggested that the problem of GPL-GFDL incompatibility could be remedied by a combined license, good for both software and documentation. It would be a complete disaster if the combined license were considered by any influential group (such as Debian) to be non-free. I don't think that this would happen in the end, as the FSF would lose most of its volunteers, and RMS is more pragmatic than he is sometimes given credit for. But just the fear that this would happen is good reason to try to fix the GFDL first.

I think that the "open source movement" has made RMS more determined than ever to stick with the "invariant sections" doctrine, since he sees open source as free software without the free software principles, and he is determined to spread the word about what he sees as the principles.

The Grumpy Editor's guide to free documentation licenses

zlynx — Wed, 27 Oct 2004 14:22:33 +0000

#2 is not a problem. Code samples in documentation are obviously quotes and covered under the same rules as quoting from a text document.

Why would that be otherwise?

The Grumpy Editor's guide to free documentation licenses

mwh — Wed, 27 Oct 2004 12:56:39 +0000

> Free software changes rapidly; its documentation has, in rare cases, been
> known to lag a little behind.

I *like* the Grumpy editor articles :-)

The Grumpy Editor's guide to free documentation licenses

cantsin — Wed, 27 Oct 2004 10:59:40 +0000

Thanks for this excellent article which sums up the current issues of open content licenses nicely. There is, however, yet another troublesome issue for Free Software documentation released under free documentation/open content licenses, namely the incompatibility of those licenses with the GPL and BSD licenses. They become a problem in two cases:

When the code and the document (like a manpage) are part of the same software package, so that non-free documentation could render it non-free as a whole
more urgently, when the documentation contains code samples. If these samples are from code under the GPL or the BSD license, they can factually not be relicensed under the overall license of the documentation. This compatiblity even effects documentation under the GNU FDL that lists code released under the GNU GPL.

I don't see a solution for this problem except a more generic GPL revision 3.0 that speaks more generally of "works" than of "programs" and thus is applicable to digital data as well.

At the institution where I currently work, Piet Zwart Institute for Media Desig nin Rotterdam/Netherlands, we are in the final stages of putting out a 100-pages Open Content Licensing Guide which compares all existing open content licenses and describes their particular aims, advantages and drawbacks. The text was principally authored by Lawrence Liang, a lawyer and member of the Alternative Law Forum in Bangalore. At the moment, I can only provide a provisional link to Lawrence's project page, but the guide will be published both in print and be downloadble under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike License.

The Grumpy Editor's guide to free documentation licenses

jamesh — Wed, 27 Oct 2004 10:53:11 +0000

given the variety of tools and formats available what is easily editable to one person may be completely useless to another person.

The "the preferred form for editing" language in the DSL license seems to cover that. PostScript might be the preferred form for editing certain documents, but if I generate the postscript with tex/dvips it certainly isn't.

This mirrors the case of software, where assembly might be the preferred form for editing for some programs while not being acceptable for other programs.

Do not count out the FDL for your next book

atai — Wed, 27 Oct 2004 07:36:09 +0000

The FSF listens to people. The FSF may address your criticisms in the future versions of the FDL.

Subversion

hisdad — Wed, 27 Oct 2004 04:10:51 +0000

Dear son,
I suggest you examine the subversion project.
Not just great software, but a great _book_ as well!
Just the sort of thing to read while relaxing dreamily in a hot bath ***.

I'm sure it will bring a smile in these dark and depressing times of
universal brough-hahah.

Ever Yours,
dad

*** PS remember to disconnect the AC adapter on your laptop
or I'll never have grandkids.

The Grumpy Editor's guide to free documentation licenses

dlang — Wed, 27 Oct 2004 01:47:21 +0000

one term that you used frequently that I see as an issue is the refernce to an 'editable format'

given the variety of tools and formats available what is easily editable to one person may be completely useless to another person.

I've been known to create postscript files directly from vi for example, many people would not consider .ps files editable, but the content may not exist in any other format.

I agree that the idea of making a document unable to be modified makes it less useful, but at the same time I don't believe that all documents should need to be modified (exerpts pulled from them possibly, but not the same document modified) an example of documents in this class are the internet RFC's. there are all sorts of reasons to use parts of them in other documents, but absolutly no reason for anyone to modify a document and call it RFC3501 for example.

The Grumpy Editor's guide to free documentation licenses

piman — Wed, 27 Oct 2004 00:57:45 +0000

> An FDL-licensed work with no invariant sections and no cover texts is, by most peoples' reckoning, free.

"Most peoples'" is, I think, an overstatement. I don't know anyone (except possibly the editor) who thinks this, and doesn't also think that a document with invariant sections and cover texts is still free. The remaining problems are not fundamental to the FDL (I think), but they do exist in its current version, and present real issues. The definitions of "transparent" and "opaque" copies leave much to be desired (and prevent "transcoding" to a new preferred format, which the GPL allows), and the anti-DRM restriction prevents even simple things like transferring the document over an SSL-encrypted channel.

http://people.debian.org/~srivasta/Position_Statement.xhtml outlines these problems. It mostly focuses on the aforementioned invariant sections because those are usually the biggest point of contention, and the most complicated issue (and also more philosophically fundamental, while the rest are technical in nature). But there are other real problems with the FDL which make it impractical and non-free, that are all-too-often ignored.