On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 10:41:18AM +1000, Ben Finney wrote:
Adam Bolte <abolte@systemsaviour.com> writes:
On 21/07/13 13:22, Ben Finney wrote: What facts are those?
The Debian project does not “reject the FDL from Debian”. Some works use the FDL with a license grant that forbids modification to some parts of the work, and it is those works only which are rejected from Debian.
I'm aware that there are exceptions. I should have clarified "rejects the FDL from main when invariant sections are used" to avoid confusion.
The FDL is not a free license: it contains restrictions on modification and redistribution that violate the four freedoms.
"The four freedoms" relate to software.
(I assume you mean “programs” here; all digital information is software, and programs are a non-exclusive subset of that, determined by how a stream of bits happens to be interpreted.)
Nope. Once again, we have a fundamental difference of opinion of what constitutes "software". I'm ignoring the sections of your e-mail that stem from this difference of opinion, since I can see no progress coming from it.
Yes, the FSF has later made it clear they intend only programs to have those four freedoms. But I've argued that they have poor justification for doing so, and are in effect trying to determine who gets what freedoms by how the *copyright holder* dictates a work is to be used.
That's quite contrary to software freedom.
I can understand the point of view that different types of works need to be protected from different kinds of attacks, and thus require different licenses, and hence different freedoms. Your concern that, say, by attaching the FDL to documentation with invariant sections might make those works inconvenient to be used in certain situations - such as printed news articles - is valid. I do not consider the restrictions to be non-free - only that there could be inconveniences when used in unexpected ways. There are reasons why FDL is not general-purpose, and these stem from offering the maximum amount of protection for freedom for the kinds of works it was designed for. There is a trade-off here, but ultimately, I expect more good than harm from the FDL.
I have no problems with reading books where copyright prevents me from redistributed modified copies, etc - which is the case with the vast majority of books that can be purchased from stores and online.
Good for you. I object to claims that such works are free. They are not.
I never made such a claim, so please don't put words in my mouth. I was clearly (so I thought) indicating that my concerns with software being free do not necessarily extend to other works.
So any software work (using the full meaning of “software”, i.e. any digitally-encoded information) licensed under the FDL is not a free work. The name “Free Documentation License” is thereby a misnomer.
Your definition of software is wrong
You're a language prescriptivist, then? I'm using a common definition; I acknowledge that the FSF's definition is also common, but it's far from universal.
When a term as important as 'software' is not clearly agreed upon, I feel that it is cause for concern. If having an authoritative definition is required to rectify the situation, so be it. I was honestly not aware of your "common definition" until this thread was brought up. I've also asked a few people around my office, and have yet to ask somebody who responds that the term 'software' includes documentation (even in digital form), audio CDs, DVDs, etc - only strong objections to this viewpoint. As Andrew pointed out, some dictionary sites suggest that the definition of software could encapsulate everything beyond computer instructions. Perhaps the most authoritative answer would be a legal definition? Have a look: http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Software Alternatively, you could consider that the FSF would be an authority on the subject, since they coined the name "free software" to begin with? According to gnu.org, software manuals are not considered software and are treated differently. This is obvious anyway, given that the existence of the FDL. They also mention the term "free cultural works" which seems to more accurately describe some of what you are referring to. https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
My definition, as well as being common, has the advantage that it is not dependent on how the work happens to be used at any point in time.
Your definition also has the disadvantages of being seemingly uncommon comparatively, and could be considered dangerous to important issues since it bundles together very different things.
I don't care for the whole "I want all rights to do anything I want to anything and everything on my hard drive just for the sake of it"
I demand the four software freedoms for all published works of software (i.e. all published creative expression encoded digitally). It's why I'm in this group.
It sounds to me like you should start a Free Culture group, if your demands exceed what is meant by the most commonly accepted definition of software.
attitude some people have - I need to see logical arguments behind the motivation. Free software has a clear argument - I think back to the printer problem RMS had at MIT, and consider all the things that could stand in the way of RMS writing a driver to operate the device the way that he wanted. Secondary non-variant sections of software documentation just doesn't make the list.
Hopefully you can see the problems described and reconsider.
I see there is a hindrance in certain possible edge-cases, but I remain unconvinced that the disadvantages of the FDL outweigh its advantages.
Perhaps now you also understand more clearly the analogy I was making to trademarks. Trademarks are being considered by the Debian project, even though by your own reasoning (that Wikipedia and I disagree with) they must be considered as software to be included in the Debian distribution.
The DFSG apply to all works in Debian, so I don't see how your analogy holds.
Then they should without question be denied a place in the Debian distribution.
But the way a software work is used doesn't change what freedoms the recipient deserves. A PDF is a program *and* a document; a font is a program *and* a data file; many programs contain documentation, and vice versa. Moreover, there's no justification for the copyright holder to dictate how any recipient will interpret the data stream, in order to deny some freedoms on that basis.
Firstly, I disagree with your assessments here. Modern PDFs can include JavaScript, although it's probably a stretch to call a PDF a software program in general.
A PDF *is* executable code, an executable program for rendering a document. The entire thing is a program, and a document, simultaneously.
Once again, your definition conflicts with what the legal Free Dictionary appears to be (linked above). A PDF is generally a product of a computer program - not a computer program itself. I suppose that next you're going to say that this e-mail is an executable program as well?
In this, a PDF is unlike a Markdown document, which is not a program.
How so? Because (as I said) it can contain executable code like JavaScript? Ignoring the JS issue, it can also contain fonts and compression too, but it still boils down to being a document file format and not a program.
Fonts are definitely not a software program
This is not true at least in the USA for scalable computer fonts like TrueType fonts. They are executable, they are programs instructing the computer how to scale the type, as well as being a data file.
<URL:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adobe_Systems,_Inc._v._Southern_Software,_Inc.>
Yep. Andrew pointed that out that in some cases there is more to them than I had expected.
Secondly, different fonts generally provide an aesthetic (rather than functional) purpose
Why the insistence on hard, exclusive distinctions, where these are not real? Fonts serve both aesthetic *and* functional purposes.
Aesthetics aren't an essential freedom. They're a nice-to-have freedom, but an entirely different kettle of fish.
The purpose of a bitstream is in part up to the recipient, and the recipient can (and commonly does) apply multiple purposes simultaneously.
Another fundamental issue is that I believe the restrictions in the FDL are possible inconveniences in certain edge-cases, that do more good than harm. You believe they render FDL-licensed works completely non-free. It's a difference in opinion that explains the differences in our reactions, so will (as before) only bother addressing the root of the problem
I happen to disagree with the Debian project on this; I think there are other clauses (e.g. the restriction on distributing a work without a copy of the license, the restrictions nominally to prevent DRM-enabled distribution) that make any FDL-licensed work non-free.
Quite surprised to hear it. The GPL3 appears to require the same thing (the license must be included), and I would have expected you to consider GPL'ed software as free software.
The GPL doesn't need to be printed along with the program when I print the program; I only need to make the terms clear to the recipient.
When you redistribute the program as printed source code (ie, text), you don't need to include the GPL license? Are you sure about that? Happy to be proven wrong. Not that it will necessarily change my opinion, mind you.
Equally surprised about your objection to the DRM clause. I would have hoped that it was redundant due to the FDL's definition of "Transparent", but I like it - for the same kinds of reasons I like the GPL3 more than the GPL2 (which prevents tivoization - yes, more restrictions!). It ensures that you are not free to restrict somebody's freedom.
See the Wikipedia page on the FDL and criticisms of the DRM clause. It's not the intent (using the tools we have to prevent DRM is good!), it's the implementation which catches too much in its net.
RMS said he would talk to a lawyer to see if it needed to be changed. It did not get changed, so presumably it is fine as is. I'm not a lawyer, so will leave that with the lawyers.
This is akin to certain laws that ensure morality is enforced.
I'm learning a lot about morality and psychology, recently. We could have a long and hopefully interesting discussion on the pros and cons of legislating morality!
Haha. Sounds fun! :) -Adam