discuss: Licenses not free. Debian. (was Re: Remote-Serial-Console-HOWTO
Subject:
Re: Licenses not free. Debian. (was Re: Remote-Serial-Console-HOWTO
From:
David Lawyer ####@####.####
Date:
8 Dec 2001 00:44:03 -0000
Message-Id: <20011207164401.B316@lafn.org>
> On Thu, Dec 06, 2001 at 09:18:51PM -0800, David Lawyer wrote:
> >
> > But the main reason for the underestimation of the number of free LDP
> > docs is that no one has really analyzed the licenses. I'm looking at
> > the LDP Statistics file and note that 21.8% of docs use LDPL which has
> > been counted as not free. But LDPL is free unless one puts in the doc
> > itself the following statement (specified in the LDPL license itself):
>
On Fri, Dec 07, 2001 at 02:39:14PM +0000, Colin Watson wrote:
> It varies, largely because it isn't clear what "LDPL" is.
I'll make it clear now. LDPL means "Linux Documentation Project
License). It has this in its heading and also has "(LDPL)" in its
heading. It's found at:
> http://www.linuxdoc.org/COPYRIGHT.html and
Now there is also an older "Linux Documentation Project Copying License"
found at:
> http://www.linuxdoc.org/LDP-COPYRIGHT.html, for instance.
Only one HOWTO (TclTk-HOWTO) points to the above url (but about 10
others have copied it into their HOWTOs). Unfortunately, this non-free
license was left in the Manifesto until I removed it (in 1999 with the
consensus of LDP). It remained in the Manifesto long after it became
obsolete. It appears in a Manifesto dated 1993, only a year after the
founding of the LDP. It was likely the first license used by LDP. The
1998 revision of the Manifesto failed to remove it.
Besides these two "LDP" licenses there are a couple more. One is the
license used for the HOWTO-INDEX. It had a statement in it (quoted
recently by David Merrill) that the HOWTO-coordinator could make
exceptions regarding the license needed by derived works. I think that
this statement was only supposed to be valid for the HOWTO-INDEX of
which the HOWTO-coordinator was the author. But unfortunately, others
decided to use this license for their own howtos and they retained the
wording without changing "HOWTO coordinator" to their own name. The
HOWTO-INDEX is insidious in this respect since the license reads like it
was intended for all HOWTOs and there was no statement in the
HOWTO-INDEX that one should or shouldn't use that license (or at least
that if you did use it, that you should substitute your own name for
"HOWTO coordinator").
Another license which is just presented as a possible license to use and
is not really a LDP license, is the one in the Manifesto
("Boilerplate"). It originally was about the same (maybe exactly the
same) as the non-free "Copying License". Then it was changed to be free
in late 1999.
[The next 2 lines repeated for clarity by DavidL]
> http://www.linuxdoc.org/COPYRIGHT.html and
> http://www.linuxdoc.org/LDP-COPYRIGHT.html, for instance.
> The former requests that the author be notified of any
> modified versions, while the latter requires the author's approval
> before modified versions are distributed. My best interpretation of
> the DFSG is that the former is DFSG-free and the latter isn't.
> However, both are listed under "LDPL" in the database.
Right, but there are more than just these two as I explained above.
>
> I have started going through all the documents listed under the LDPL
> in the database and finding those that fall under the "modifiable
> LDPL" category (the name may not be the best, but it'll do for now),
> and will send the results to David Merrill to have the database
> updated. I'll have completed this long before I need to change the
> Debian packages.
So the LDPL in the database should be temporarily changed to say LDPs
and LDPs defined to be one of the various LDP licenses. Then a finer
differentiation of licenses could be made in the future.
> Incidentally, the story on Slashdot was a little misleading about how
> urgent this is. Although the part of the archive containing the LDP
> documents is in a slushy kind of freeze as of about two days from now,
> it doesn't freeze solid until a month after that. I think there's
> still plenty of time to clarify whatever needs clarifying.
Another argument I would like to give is that "Debian Free Software
Guidelines" perhaps doesn't govern documentation. I can find no
statement in it that it applies to documents. Thus I suggest that it be
temporarily interpreted as not applying to documents and then no
separation by Debian of LDP docs into free and non-free is required.
There is a big difference between non-free software and non-free
documentation. Non-free software is often concealed by not supplying
the source code. But even if the source code is supplied, most users
never look at it and most wouldn't understand it if they did look at it.
For documents, all the users hopefully understand the document they
read. Their knowledge of the subject can help prepare them to teach
others about it and even to write new documentation.
What I'm comparing above is software and documents that are both free in
price (and copying), but which are non-free in modifying. I would argue
that there are good reasons that an author may want to restrict
modification. These include insuring the quality of the document, not
having a fork in the document (resulting in duplication of effort),
and not letting someone make a few changes and then become sort of a
co-author. However, I think that for such documentation to be "free",
there should at least be a provision that anyone can modify the document
if the author fails to adequately maintain it. I know "adequate" can't
be defined exactly and there might arise disagreements as to what it
means. I've yet to see a document with such a provision but if there
was, I would consider it to be "free".
David Lawyer
