Subject:
Re: Free Documentation Definition (revised)
From:
David Lawyer ####@####.####
Date:
16 Jul 2001 20:38:25 -0000
Message-Id: <20010716132824.N226@lafn.org>
On Sun, Jul 15, 2001 at 06:40:00PM -0400, David Merrill wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 15, 2001 at 01:58:04PM -0700, David Lawyer wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 12, 2001 at 02:27:50PM -0700, David Lawyer wrote:
> > > If we are to segregate our docs into free and non-free sections, we
> > > need to have some criteria to determine what is free and what is
> > > non-free. Personally, I don't think we should go ahead with such
> > > segregation although it would be nice to put the docs into categories
> > > depending on the license. For example, how many are licensed under the
> > > old LDP license, how many used GPL or GFDL, etc.
> > >
> > > But if we are to go ahead with such segregation then I've written a
> > > definition as to what I think constitutes free documentation. The
> > > boundary line between free and non-free is not clearly delineated. In
> > > my opinion it is inherently a fuzzy boundary and is subject to the
> > > interpretation of whoever is sorting out the licenses. I've included
> > > protecting the rights of the public from abuse.
> > Here's a slightly revised draft:
> > -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > FREE DOCUMENTATION DEFINITION
> > ****Draft Version 0.01****
> > by David S. Lawyer, July 14, 2001
> >
> > I. GENERAL:
> >
> > A free copyrighted document (doc) must have a license that gives
> > anyone the right to freely and responsibly do the following: copy,
> > distribute, display, and modify the doc (including derived works),
> > provided that these rights are not abused to the detriment of the
> > public. Here are the ways which these rights given by the license may
> > (or must) be restricted so as to protect the public (and to a lesser
> > degree, the author):
> > -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > II. REQUIREMENTS:
> >
> > 1. Distribution: The following must be freely available to the public
> > (and such availability must be easy to find out about):
> > a. a transparent (defined later) copy
> > b. a transparent source document (such as in SGML, XML, HTML) if
> > it exists
> >
> > 2. Derived work: The license for such a work must be restricted
> > to a license (or a choice of licenses) which meet the requirements
> > of this "Free Documentation Definition"
> > -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > III. OPTIONAL allowed restrictions:
> >
> > 1. Copying: All (or some) copying may be required to be transparent.
> >
> > 2. Displaying and Derived works: Advertising may be restricted,
> > including the display of the doc with advertising. Extraneous
> > materials may be restricted (like advertising). Such extraneous
> > materials includes religious and political statements. But
> > statements supporting free software and/or documentation (within
> > reason) are permitted.
>
> This would keep O'Reilly from distributing them. Or any print
> publisher, for that matter. All books that I've seen include
> advertising for other books from the same publisher.
>
> I don't think this is necessary, anyway.
I would think that if O'Reilly didn't have the advertising on the same
page as the doc, then it would be OK. Do you think I should I say
"Traditional advertising in print media must be allowed" ? There are
also magazine articles to consider. Magazines have traditionally had
ads on the same page as the articles (which could be a LDP doc).
Since I think that electronic media is better for the user in order to
get updates, I'm not convinced that the way I worded it is a serious
flaw. This is a case where it's difficult to draw the line between
free and non-free.
>
> > 3. Distribution: Clear labeling may be required if:
> > a. The doc is an out-of-date version, or
> > b. The doc is being sold and many potential purchasers are not aware that
> > the doc is also available free of charge.
>
> The problem isn't with people publishing out of date works, it's
> people publish works that then go out of date but continue to be
> published, particularly on the net.
Right. But doesn't what I wrote cover this case? If the doc is an
out-of-date version it could have happened because it was not removed
(or put into an "archive" directory) when a new version was issued.
>
> > 4. Derived works: If this represents a significant improvement, it may
> > be required that a good faith effort be made to put the derived work
> > on the Internet for free distribution.
>
> This is covered by requiring source to be made available.
But how is it to be made available? Likely on the Internet, but why
not say so directly? Also, users seldom want the source. Of course
if they submit source to LDP then the other formats are generated for
the public.
>
> > Derived works may be prohibited unless there is a good reason to
> > do so for public benefit. Such good reasons include:
> >
> > a. The doc is not being adequately maintained b. The license has
> > been changed to a non-free one c. Software changes call for
> > immediate modification of the doc
>
> This is very subjective.
True. This means that the people that interpret this will need to
decide just where the boundary line is in many cases.
>
> > An attempt to timely contact the author(s) about any significantly
> > modified derived work may be required.
> >
> > It may be required to keep (without altering) certain
> > non-modifiable sections relating to non-technical topics provided
> > they are only a small percentage of the document. There should be
> > an expiration time for such sections so that they may be removed
> > when they become stale.
>
> No, the document should always be available. Forever.
I agree, but removal from the current versions doesn't mean that there
are no archived versions around which would have the original
non-modifiable section.
>
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > IV. OTHER RESTRICTIONS:
> >
> > Other than the restrictions mentioned above, no other restrictions
> > are allowed. The license may not contain a termination clause.
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > V. DEFINITION:
> >
> > A "Transparent" copy is an electronic copy of a document which is
> > in a format commonly used in the free software community and may
> > be both viewed and converted to other formats using free software.
> > Plain text is also "transparent". Technical means (such as
> > encryption) may not be used for the purpose of restricting its
> > viewing, copying, or modification.
>
> Transparent copy is plain text.
What I meant by "plain text" is text without any markup (such as
tags). I would hope that no one would interpret "plain text" to
include a proprietary markup language which has source in "plain
text". So I've changed this to "Plain text (without tags) ..."
>
> -- Dr. David C. Merrill http://www.lupercalia.net Linux
> Documentation Project ####@####.#### Collection Editor &
> Coordinator http://www.linuxdoc.org
>
> If one company dominates everything, it's dangerous. You kill
> innovation and you lose the capacity to create alternatives.
> Ultimately, that isn't good for the consumer or the country.
> --Samuel Miller, U.S. Justice Department
>
> _________________________ http://list.linuxdoc.org/
>
>
David Lawyer
