discuss: [Debian removes free documentation / technical aspects]
Subject:
Re: [discuss] [Debian removes free documentation / technical aspects]
From:
David Lawyer ####@####.####
Date:
10 Apr 2006 02:51:51 -0000
Message-Id: <20060410005957.GD4286@lafn.org>
On Wed, Apr 05, 2006 at 09:48:25AM +0200, Sergiusz Pawlowicz wrote:
> Moving GFDL Documentation to non-free. After the Debian Project
> [5]decided upon the freeness of documentation released under the GNU
> Free Documentation [6]license (GFDL), J?r?me Marant [7]wondered
> about the best way to move non-free parts from his emacs package to
> non-free. J?rg Jaspert [8]answered that the source tarball has to be
> split into two parts and that the free source package should not be
> renamed.
>
> 5. http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2006/03/msg00012.html
> 6. http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html
> 7. http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2006/03/msg01061.html
> 8. http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2006/03/msg01072.html
This is not a problem for LDP. But in a way it is since per the
manifesto we are supposed to be concerned with all aspects of Linux
documentation, not just the documentation created by our authors.
To split a software package into two parts because of the
documentation license is absurd in this case (in my opinion). I think
that many of people that voted on this Debian policy didn't envision
this kind of thing happening.
The non-modifiable section is likely just a statement supporting free
software (the GNU Manifesto ?). What's wrong with that? Well, it
might be wrong if it was an advertisement of some sort. Also, I think
that there should be a time limit on how long such non-modifiable
sections remain non-modifiable.
I understand the GFDL is going to be modified this year, but I don't
expect a lot of improvement. Other problems with it is that it's too
long and is supposed to be included with the doc, rather than by html
reference.
Another situation is that many people don't understand that it's much
more important to have a free license for software than it is to have
a free license for documentation. Non-free software can't be studied
unless it's open source and even then it may be hard to study due to poor
comments. Not so for non-free documentation, where it's designed to be
read and understood by the readers (users). And readers can then
utilize the facts they learn to write improved documentation since
facts themselves are not copyrighted.
There's also the problem of people adding advertisements to
documentation. I checked on this a few years ago on the Internet for
one of my HOWTOs and found many sites that had added advertising. I
suppose it's time to check again.
All these problems mean that a new and better documentation license is
needed and perhaps LDP could come up with one. I'm not too encouraged
since when I mentioned my proposal for prohibiting adding advertising
to docs at the San Diego Doc Summit in 2001 there was only opposition.
David Lawyer
