Subject:
Re: Proposal for revised license and license requirements.
From:
Mysid ####@####.####
Date:
8 Jun 2005 07:05:35 -0000
Message-Id: <6eb799ab0506080005331eb392@mail.gmail.com>
On 6/6/05, David Lawyer ####@####.#### wrote:
> > On Sat, Jun 04, 2005 at 07:25:15PM -0700, David Lawyer wrote:
> There are some points in favor of making a document non-modifiable.
> Non-modifiable means that you can modify it, provided you have the author's
> permission. Thus the author can try to prevent modification that only
> degrades the document: adding advertising to it, intentionally adding
> untrue statements, etc. Such degradations have actually happened.
> When the author wants to turn it over to someone else, they can select
> who that person will be (if there is more than one volunteer).
This is a huge sacrifice of freedom for very little gain.
So what if someone can degrade a copy of the document, the
degraded version would surely not prevail in the community if it were
truly degraded, correct?
Would the TLDP, Debian, whatever, other distributors even accept some
random person's submission of a revision to add a popup ad to a
document? I hope not.
The freedom to modify would easily ensure that the degradation could be
reversed, i.e. the advertisements could be removed, and any
improvements that went along side the addition of advertising therefore
could be used as well.
> Non-free documentation is free to use (in a sense) to create improved
> documentation, unlike non-free software which can't be used to create
> improved software. To use non-free documentation, you simply read it
Non-free software could be used to create improved software.
If the source is not available, then how it works can be examined.
If the source is available, then it could be studied and used to develop new
software following the same core principles, or at least through learning
of where its design was bad or good.
I don't see that documentation is significantly different in regards to the
issue of freedom.
Partly: the whole point of having freedom is that you would not need to
rewrite it yourself to make improvements and share modified versions
with others freely.
Restrict modification, and you have something that is not free at all.
> and use what you learn plus what you learn from other sources to
> write improved documentation. So non-free documentation is not a big
> stumbling block to improvement like non-free software is. Of course,
They are both big stumbling blocks. Non-free documentation means
that the person who happened to author that document gets the
last word.. it means the documentation can't be readily updated.
It means the documenting/communication process/flow of information
is slowed down more than it should be.
> it may be easier to create improved documentation from freely
> modifiable documents by just copying parts of it. You can't do this
> with non-free. But if you have to rewrite the whole thing from
> scratch (the case for non-free) then the result may be better.
In practice that likely means the improvement doesn't happen.
Fixing a broken document or adapting the documentation for one free software
product to consider a derivative/similar product is considerably easier than
rewriting a document.
> This is needed. I think that free documentation means no advertising,
> (including pop-up ads, etc.) and that modifications should be
> improvements rather than degradations. This implies that restrictions
Free documentation means at least the right to modify, and the right to share
freely.
Which includes the right to include advertising, sell copies, whatever.
Also, the right to remove advertising.
Consider "Free Software"... that has nothing to do with having
software that is free from spyware, advertising, or other annoyances.
These are desirable qualities, but you can't deny these privileges
without removing freedoms that are extremely desirable.
> on modification and display are needed to make it truly free. It's
> freedom for the reader to not have to be annoyed by ads and the
> freedom to not read untrue statements intentionally put into the
> document (not just honest mistakes).
These are conveniences, not freedoms.
If the reader has freedom to modify the document, then they may use
a popup blocker, remove the ads by hand, or by any method of choice.
I suppose if they are restricted from modifying, and the author includes
popups, then they aren't free to use a popup blocker.
There's no freedom from reading untrue statements anymore than there
is freedom from running buggy code.
Of course it is reasonable that modifiers have to include prominent notice
of their modifications and pointers to the official document.
> requirements are supposed to be short and simple. But I think that
> most authors that don't maintain their doc would be willing to turn it
> over to someone who is able to maintain it.
And what about those that don't or just disappear?
In principle, if you let them say you can't modify it, then you can't.
Even if one would guess that they don't mind...
What's worse than listing complex requirements is going with vague suppositions
about what you think they might like to allow.
One thing that should not be assumed is that it will be possible to
actually contact the author and get them to give permission to
the new maintainer
(if they have disappeared, then they won't).
--
-Mysid
