discuss: [Debian removes free documentation / technical aspects]
Subject:
Re: [discuss] [Debian removes free documentation / technical aspects]
From:
David Lawyer ####@####.####
Date:
16 Apr 2006 03:29:32 -0000
Message-Id: <20060416032917.GC2105@lafn.org>
On Thu, Apr 13, 2006 at 11:05:53PM +0530, Y Giridhar Appaji Nag wrote:
> On 06/04/09 17:59 -0700, David Lawyer said ...
> >
> > The non-modifiable section is likely just a statement supporting free
> > software (the GNU Manifesto ?). What's wrong with that? Well, it
>
> This happens to be the case only with the GNU documentation. Others who
> license documentation under the GFDL don't include the GNU Manifesto in
> their documentation and indicate that it is an invariant section.
That's true. Is there any survey of what is put in these invariant
sections?
>
> > 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
>
> Non free software _can_ be "studied" even if it is not open source.
> Microsoft has a program wherein you can sign an agreement / accept a
> license and look at the source code of their software. I doubt if the
> point of a free software license is to be able to just "study" it.
It's one of the points or course. It's probably a lot simpler to
check out non-free books from a library and study them than to arrange
with M$ to study their code.
> > 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.
>
> The situation would be similar in case of non-free software. Like for
> instance, one group of people can study a software and document it and
> then a totally different group that did not look at the original source
> code can implement that functionality (maybe "improved" in some ways:
> lesser number of bugs, more features etc.?). This wouldn't be against
> copyright laws either.
With regard to documentation, it's often the same person that studies
the existing documentation and also writes the new documentation.
>
> ... Or, did I miss the point that you were trying to make? :)
I guess you did. I was trying to show why non-free software is
significantly more detrimental to society than non-free documentation.
> > 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
>
> I really don't see the need for another _new_ license. From what I
> understand of what you say, it looks like we need certain guidelines on
> _what_ we consider a free documentation license. Something on the lines
> of the Debian Free Software Guidelines (DFSG) and tests that will help
> us determine if a license is free enough or not for our purpose.
Although you didn't necessarily imply that the DFSG are OK, I don't
think they are very good. The major problem with them is that they
mainly state what the license must not restrict, not the rights that
the license must grant. This results in possible loopholes. For
example, if a license doesn't have any restrictions, then the
copyrighted work is still very much restricted by copyright law. In
this case, for the DFSG to apply, such a license that has no
restrictions must be interpreted as one that has all the restrictions
of copyright law. Such an interpretation is of debatable validity.
So the DFSG should be redone to mainly specify what rights the licence
should grant.
David Lawyer
