Thanks for posting the debian osition statement. I didn't know thw GFDL was that deficient, but it clearly is. Chers to those who contributed on debian-legal.
I'm of the opinion that documents are open to interpretation and processing by man or machine just as software, and the cloaking of software as a literary work for the purpose of crypto-export is an interesting examle; however we've had these discusions before - but I wonder where we'd be if Knuths classic works were GFDL.
My only explanation is that GFDL is written to solve a problem that isn't widely known yet...
Sam
-----Original Message----- From: Ben Finney ben@benfinney.id.au Sent: 09 February 2008 01:36 To: discussion@fsfeurope.org Subject: Re: FDL requirements for original author
On 08-Feb-2008, David Gerard wrote:
GFDL is free by all measures if you don't use invariant sections and so forth, isn't it? Does anyone dispute that?
Unmodifiable sections (not merely those the license calls "Invariant Sections") are only the most prominent of the problematic issues of the FDL. Even if a specific work does not exercise those parts of the license, the other problems remain.
"Draft Debian Position Statement about the GNU Free Documentation License" Not ratified, but does cover many of the problems with the freedom of works under the FDL. URL:http://people.debian.org/~srivasta/Position_Statement.xhtml
"A Simple Guide to the Problems of the GNU FDL" URL:http://mjr.towers.org.uk/blog/2006/fdl
Many of the remaining problems have to do with the license attempting to have "documentation" distinct from "program", even though there are many works that are clearly both (e.g. Postscript documents).
It's unfortunate that some within the FSF choose to interpret "software" as equivalent to "program", instead of the more tenable position that "software" is a term as opposed to "hardware". This leads to the even worse position that documentation recipients deserve freedoms different from the freedoms deserved by recipients of programs.
Sam Liddicott sam@liddicott.com writes:
Thanks for posting the debian osition statement.
It's not actually a statement of the Debian position (though it was drafted with the intention of becoming the official position); the Debian project has no official position on this. The 2006-001 General Resolution described an action to be taken by the Debian project w.r.t. works under the FDL, but did not explain the position leading to that action.
I didn't know thw GFDL was that deficient, but it clearly is. Chers to those who contributed on debian-legal.
You're welcome. Feel free to continue the discussion, especially if you can bring it closer to those who might listen at the FSF.
I'm of the opinion that documents are open to interpretation and processing by man or machine just as software
Perhaps, then, you would agree that all digital information — i.e. any bitstream (or "software", as opposed to its containing medium of hardware) — should be released with the same freedoms that the FSF currently promote only for programs, and that they should not attempt to distinguish programs from non-programs to determine what freedoms accrue.
My only explanation is that GFDL is written to solve a problem that isn't widely known yet...
As for that, RMS has made his own position clear as to the purpose of the FDL's unmodifiable sections. The purpose is denying essential freedoms to recipients of software that happens to be interpreted as documentation.
The goal of invariant sections, ever since the 80s when we first made the GNU Manifesto an invariant section in the Emacs Manual, was to make sure they could not be removed. [...]
Changing the GFDL to permit removal of these sections would defeat the purpose.
URL:http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/08/msg00807.html
Others associated with the FSF have expressed contrary opinions. Eben Moglen, for instance, made the insightful observation that:
In the digital society, it's all connected. We can't depend for the long run on distinguishing one bitstream from another in order to figure out which rules apply.
URL:http://old.law.columbia.edu/my_pubs/anarchism.html
I don't know how these conflicting positions are resolved within the FSF. I hope the latter position gains mindshare within the FSF, and that the former is rejected.
Ben Finney wrote:
<URL:http://old.law.columbia.edu/my_pubs/anarchism.html>
The fact that this essay is in the section "Third Party Ideas" is not a mere coincidence, IMO.
It is important to understand that not everything that flies is delicious when cooked and that the mushrooms in the forest cannot be treated equally.
Software is useless without a computer to compile (and/or interpret) and execute it, while a you can read a printed manual in the park without any machine at all. Not all written bits of digitally representable information are useful for the society to be modified, so I find it hard to believe that a math book with an invariant section "Dedicated to John Doe, my first student at the Foo University" renders the work non-free.
It would be substantially easier if judgement about freeness of a work is a boolean value, e.g. "This byte is modifiable, it is free" or "This byte is not modifiable, it is non free". But human brains are not mechanical parsers, and issues like these deserve serious thought; not always the easiest implementation/route is the right one.
The GNU FDL, although not ideal in some circumstances, is the most suitable license for such type of works. The new versions coming out soon will be even better.
Yavor Doganov yavor@gnu.org writes:
Software is useless without a computer to compile (and/or interpret) and execute it
Yes, that's true even for software that is not executed.
while a you can read a printed manual in the park without any machine at all.
The example of printing cryptographic programs in order that they could be exported from the USA has already been raised. Another example of the folly of trying to apply different rules to a bitstream depending on its interpretation in a particular situation.
Not all written bits of digitally representable information are useful for the society to be modified, so I find it hard to believe that a math book with an invariant section "Dedicated to John Doe, my first student at the Foo University" renders the work non-free.
This is easy to present a counter-example: I might like to excerpt a useful passage from such a work and include it in mine. My work is *not* dedicated to John Doe, and I have never had students at Foo University.
Having that dedication as an unmodifiable, unremovable section attached to the passage means I must *lie* if I want to include that passage in my work. That is a non-free restriction.
Other counter-examples are possible, but it would overburden this thread to enumerate them all. Hopefully, now that it's demonstrated, you no longer find it hard to believe that such a restriction is non-free.
It would be substantially easier if judgement about freeness of a work is a boolean value, e.g. "This byte is modifiable, it is free" or "This byte is not modifiable, it is non free".
Fortunately, there is no copyright jurisdiction (to my knowledge) that allows copyright on individual bytes, so this isn't an issue.
But human brains are not mechanical parsers, and issues like these deserve serious thought; not always the easiest implementation/route is the right one.
Here we agree.
The GNU FDL, although not ideal in some circumstances, is the most suitable license for such type of works.
I disagree. The FDL was specifically designed for manuals accompanying programs. I argue instead that, because of the incompatibility between the FDL and works commonly applied to programs, a better choice instead is to apply the *same* license to both the program and the manual that accompanies it.
The new versions coming out soon will be even better.
I hope you're right.
Ben Finney bignose+hates-spam@benfinney.id.au writes:
The FDL was specifically designed for manuals accompanying programs. I argue instead that, because of the incompatibility between the FDL and works commonly applied to programs, a better choice instead is to apply the *same* license to both the program and the manual that accompanies it.
This should read "… incompatibility between the FDL and licenses commonly applied to programs …"
On 09/02/2008, Ben Finney bignose+hates-spam@benfinney.id.au wrote:
Yavor Doganov yavor@gnu.org writes:
[GFDL]
The new versions coming out soon will be even better.
I hope you're right.
CC by-sa compatibility (probably with a future CC by-sa).
- d.
Yavor Doganov yavor@gnu.org wrote:
so I find it hard to believe that a math book with an invariant section "Dedicated to John Doe, my first student at the Foo University" renders the work non-free.
If it were indeed an invariant section (which it shouldn't be - it should be a Dedication in the FDL's language, as I understand it), then it would poison-pill the work. Neither John Doe nor the Foo University could become a primary topic of the work or any derivation, so if John Doe went on to make new discoveries about that field of maths, then they could not be incorporated and set into their context by updating that text book. How is that free?
Invariant sections may seem like a good idea, just like the advertising clauses seemed like a good idea, but they're a pratical pain in the backside and an easy way to make something non-free by mistake (such as using an invariant section instead of a dedications section) or malice.
The FDL should be nuked from orbit, just to be on the safe side. IIRC, the SFDL is a bit better, although it still has some types of invariant sections (including itself *in* the work, for example) but BY-SA compatibility would leave a choice between invariant sections and TPM-bans, neither of which are good IMO.
Hope that explains,