discuss: Thread: Documentation licensing

At 16:48 4/6/2004, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>You are making this as some fight over individual
>preferences and choices while it is not.

I disagree... it is. What you, and I, and likely several dozen other 
people, collectively believe as a group named the LDP is an aggregation of 
our individual beliefs. I believe that the LDP should host, and help 
markup, and help distribute, any Documentation which is related to Linux, 
which helps its users have greater success with and enjoyment of the 
operating system, and which in any way improves the quality of their 
computing experience while using Linux... REGARDLESS of whether they use 
exclusively Free software or not. I believe that Open Source tools to 
replace many closed and proprietary tools, but that we should not starve 
while we grow our new crops. I believe that we should not intentionally 
restrict the use and availability of either tools or documentation because 
it happens to disagree with out beliefs.

In short, I believe in an "inclusive" Linux Documentation Project. You 
appear to disagree, being more than willing to chuck out a document based 
on its license (not on whether its useful today or not, or whether it's 
maintained or not), or based on whether the tool or program being 
documented is Free or not. It is my perception that your personal beliefs 
in this matter RESTRICT the freedoms of the LDP and of its users, thence of 
most/all Linux users who use the LDP as a source of knowledge. It is 
because I believe that (a) you are a good man with good intentions and (b) 
that your restrictive beliefs are damaging to my view of the LDP's mission 
and purpose, that I take such issue with them.

>I dont want to consult a lawyer just because
>i want to distribute documents from LDP

What you *want* (and what I want) is entirely irrelevant. What will best 
fulfill the mission and purpose of the Linux Documentation Project is all 
that matters.

>Its not at all about my beliefs and choices.

<joke> Perfect! Since it's not about your beliefs and choices, then just be 
quiet and we'll do it my way. </joke>

Au contraire... it is *entirely* about our individual beliefs and choices, 
since out of these grow the collective beliefs and choices of the LDP.

Cheers,


-- 
Rodolfo J. Paiz
####@####.####
http://www.simpaticus.com

On Wed, Apr 07, 2004 at 12:29:50AM +0100, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> Hi
> 
> > 1.  I hope you agree that any use of the optional
> > invariant sections
> > makes the content not "modifiable".

I wouldn't completely agree.  It's not 100% modifiable but the part that
can't be modified isn't the technical part so the technical content is
still 100% modifiable.  What is wrong is that the invariant section
needs to have an expiration date.  Otherwise we can have invariant
political statements that will be fully obsolete many decades later, but
which will still have to be kept in the doc.

> Yes. Thats optional and I hope that majority of
> existing documentation dont include it.
> 
> > 
> > 2.  Section 2's DRM restriction clause (banning all "technical
> > measures to obstruct or control" reading and copying) appears to ban
> > storing or conveying GFDL-covered content over encrypted media or
> > links, among

I don't think this was the intent and the intent can be inferred from
the license.  So does it really ban this?

> > other things.  Although the right to (say) put a document in a
> > password-covered Zip archive isn't in your list, I suspect silly
> > prohibitions of ordinary usage actions aren't OK with you.
> > 

> > 3.  Section 3's Copying in Quantity clause requires that
> > distributors not merely _offer_ GFDLed documents' "transparent"
> > renditions to the public, but that it must actually be _included_. 

All you need to include is a link to the transparent rendition.

> I think TLDP doesnt have any explicitly stated criteria for licenses
> that are acceptable.

Oh yes we do.  It's in the Manifesto.

> The problems stated with FDL though important are not as much a
> potential problem compared to the existing situtation
> 
> I have seen this content on http://tldp.org/docs.html#howto
> 
> "Non-Free Documents (contain license restrictions):
> 
>     *
> 
>       Rute Users Tutorial and Exposition
> 
>       Due to restrictive license provisions, the Rute document has
>       been removed from the LDP, but can still be accessed from
>       http://rute.sourceforge.net/
> 
It violated the requirements in the Manifesto.
> 
> So TLDP has classified atleast one such document as non free. So what
> I am pushing for here is certainly not new.
> 
> The choices we can make are simple. We should specify a common set of
> criteria for licenses that makes them acceptable
> 
We already do.
[snip]
			David Lawyer

Quoting Rick Moen ####@####.####
> ...
>> I think we can allow GNU FDL documents but recommend
>> the creative commons license for new documents and NOT
>> allow variations or any other license
>
> Personal opinion:  Introduce GFDL 1.2-covered works today -- especially
> any with invariant sections, and TLDP will regret it tomorrow.


We recommend that authors use the following (notice the clear
stament of "No Invariant Sections"...and other texts):

    <para>
     This document, <emphasis>Sample XML HOWTO</emphasis>,
     is copyrighted (c) 2002 by <emphasis>author_name</emphasis>.
     Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this
     document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation
     License, Version 1.1 or any later version published
     by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant Sections,
     with no Front-Cover Texts, and with no Back-Cover Texts.
     A copy of the license is available at
     <ulink url="http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html">
     http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html</ulink>.
    </para>

-- 
Greg Ferguson / LDP volunteer
####@####.####

Quoting David Lawyer ####@####.####

> I wouldn't completely agree.  It's not 100% modifiable but the part that
> can't be modified isn't the technical part so the technical content is
> still 100% modifiable.  What is wrong is that the invariant section
> needs to have an expiration date.  Otherwise we can have invariant
> political statements that will be fully obsolete many decades later, but
> which will still have to be kept in the doc.

I'm surprised that you say so, since the problems go very far beyond
that.  For example, derivative works not only must retain the invariant
sections unchanged, but also may not address the same topic the
invariant section covers.  So, to invent an example (and I'm sure you
can think of better ones), if a GFDLed text on Perl incorporating a nice
chapter on regular expressions includes an invariant section expressing
the author's peeves against Java, then the regex section cannot be used
in a derivative text about Java.

In any event, good luck convincing GFDLed text's authors to include
expiration dates for their invariant sections.  It would be a first.

> > > 2.  Section 2's DRM restriction clause (banning all "technical
> > > measures to obstruct or control" reading and copying) appears to ban
> > > storing or conveying GFDL-covered content over encrypted media or
> > > links, among
> 
> I don't think this was the intent and the intent can be inferred from
> the license.

Hey, neat!  You could grind flour between the two halves of that sentence.  
(They contradict one another.)

Make up your mind:  Are you going to evaluate licences by reading their
text and seeing what they say, or by second-guessing the intentions of
some arguably related party?

In this case, the party whose "intent" is available is Mr. Stallman,
which would be relevant only in copyright matters where _he_ is the
copyright owner:  The issue at law would be what rights the _owner_ has
granted.  Thus, Mr. Stallman's intentions would be relevant to TLDP only
for TLDP documents he authored, currently numbering zero.

But another point is this:  If the licensing is unclear even upon
careful reading, then at a minimum it's badly written.  Thus my comment
that Stallman said FSF acknowledged that a post-1.2 version may have to
revise that particular section to improve it.

> All you need to include is a link to the transparent rendition.

That is true, but the transparent rendition must remain at that location
for at least one year.  So, even if a document was posted for one day
before being revised, a complete transparent-copy rendition of that
one-day-long release must remain posted for a year.

So, either way, it's a big hassle.

> > I think TLDP doesnt have any explicitly stated criteria for licenses
> > that are acceptable.
> 
> Oh yes we do.  It's in the Manifesto.

Well:   It says no mandatory fees, and suggests but doesn't require a
forkable licence, of which a (pretty good!) short example is provided.  
So, basically any licence that doesn't charge money is "acceptable".

That's a start, I guess.  

-- 
Cheers,             "Don't use Outlook.  Outlook is really just a security
Rick Moen            hole with a small e-mail client attached to it."
####@####.####                        -- Brian Trosko in r.a.sf.w.r-j

Quoting Rick Moen ####@####.####

> I'm surprised that you say so, since the problems go very far beyond
> that.  For example, derivative works not only must retain the invariant
> sections unchanged, but also may not address the same topic the
> invariant section covers.

Where in the GNU FDL does it state that derivative works may not address
the same topic as an Invariant section?

I read the FDL pretty thoroughly (or at least I thought I did), and
while I saw several restrictions against _titling_ a new section to
conflict with an Invariant section, I did not see any restrictions
against addressing the topic of an Invariant section.

> Personal opinion:  Introduce GFDL 1.2-covered works today -- 
> especially any with invariant sections, and TLDP will regret it
> tomorrow.

It's a little too late for that --
http://www.tldp.org/LDP/LDP-Author-Guide/html/doc-licensing.html already
cites GNU FDL as the first recommended license, and
http://www.tldp.org/authors/template/Sample-HOWTO.html defaults to GNU
FDL 1.1.

I am interested in why you single out GFDL 1.2 given that GFDL 1.1 is
more common on TLDP than 1.2. Is version 1.2 spectacularly worse than
1.1 in some major way that escaped my notice?

-David

Quoting David Jao ####@####.####

> Where in the GNU FDL does it state that derivative works may not address
> the same topic as an Invariant section?

Section 1 includes:

   A "Secondary Section" is a named appendix or a front-matter section
   of the Document that deals exclusively with the relationship of the
   publishers or authors of the Document to the Document's overall subject
   (or to related matters) and contains nothing that could fall directly
   within that overall subject. (Thus, if the Document is in part a
   textbook of mathematics, a Secondary Section may not explain any
   mathematics.)

    The "Invariant Sections" are certain Secondary Sections whose titles
    are designated, as being those of Invariant Sections, in the notice
    that says that the Document is released under this License. 

Imagine an author creates a work and aspires to issue it under GFDL 1.2,
and wants certain passages to be treated as invariant sections.
According to other wording in section 1:

    If a section does not fit the above definition of Secondary then it
    is not allowed to be designated as Invariant.

So, for the passage to qualify for invariant section treatment, the
author must ensure that it first qualifies as Secondary.  I.e., the
section must be off-topic relative to the rest of the document (must not 
"fall directly within that overall topic").

Invariant sections by definition must never be removed from the
document or derivatives by third-party recipients.  They must also never
be modified.  Quoting 4L:

    In addition, you must do these things in the Modified Version: 
    [...]  L.  Preserve all the Invariant Sections of the Document,
    unaltered in their text and in their titles. Section numbers or the
    equivalent are not considered part of the section titles.

Now, some while later, a second author wishes to create a derivative
work reusing material from the GFDLed work, to address a different
topic.  Unfortunately for him, he finds that the work also includes an
invariant section that addresses his topic.  That section was off-topic
for the first author's work (thus meeting that requirement for invariant
status), but sadly topical for the second work -- which means the second
author would not be keeping it Secondary, and thus his planned
derivative work wouldn't satisfy the first author's terms of usage.

> I read the FDL pretty thoroughly (or at least I thought I did), and
> while I saw several restrictions against _titling_ a new section to
> conflict with an Invariant section, I did not see any restrictions
> against addressing the topic of an Invariant section.

It's not obvious upon initial reading, which brings me to a second
point:  The GFDL 1.2 text is complex and confusingly written for what is
supposed to be a free-software licence.  When Richard Stallman was my
houseguest and advised me to wait for the GFDL draft (initially called
DGPL) to be adjusted into final shape, I was rather unimpressed by the
mess I saw at the time.  Things haven't gotten better; they've actually
gotten worse.

> > Personal opinion:  Introduce GFDL 1.2-covered works today -- 
> > especially any with invariant sections, and TLDP will regret it
> > tomorrow.
> 
> It's a little too late for that --
> http://www.tldp.org/LDP/LDP-Author-Guide/html/doc-licensing.html already
> cites GNU FDL as the first recommended license, and
> http://www.tldp.org/authors/template/Sample-HOWTO.html defaults to GNU
> FDL 1.1.

Well, you-plural can fix that.  ;->

Quite a lot of people seem to have believed GFDL is a suitable licence
on the strength of FSF's recommendation.  That was initially a
persuasive factor with me, too:  It took me quite a while to reach the
conclusion that it's not merely verbose and over-complex but also
problematic.

> I am interested in why you single out GFDL 1.2 given that GFDL 1.1 is
> more common on TLDP than 1.2. Is version 1.2 spectacularly worse than
> 1.1 in some major way that escaped my notice?

Well, I have not yet _studied_ GFDL 1.1, and thus cannot in fairness
comment.  GFDL 1.0 aka DGPL 1.0, I did read -- please see general
comment, above.  (I always try to qualify my comments on licensing to
cite versions of licences under discussion, because I've seen many
avoidable misunderstandings arise when people don't take that trouble.)
Moreover, my main concern with GFDL arose from its increasing usage in
GNU documentation.  When I've examined that documentation lately, I've
encountered v. 1.2.

-- 
Cheers,               No trees were destroyed in the sending of this message. 
Rick Moen             We do concede, though, that a large number of electrons 
####@####.####   were terribly inconvenienced.

On Wed, Apr 07, 2004 at 09:48:50PM -0700, Rick Moen wrote:
> Now, some while later, a second author wishes to create a derivative
> work reusing material from the GFDLed work, to address a different
> topic.  Unfortunately for him, he finds that the work also includes an
> invariant section that addresses his topic.  That section was off-topic
> for the first author's work (thus meeting that requirement for invariant
> status), but sadly topical for the second work -- which means the second
> author would not be keeping it Secondary, and thus his planned
> derivative work wouldn't satisfy the first author's terms of usage.

Could you give an example where that, would happen/has happened, as opposed to
the fact that it could theoretically happen?  What I'm wondering about,
is the practicality of the topic shift.

On a related note from a personal point of view; I understand why RMS
continues the quest to ensure that people understand why software must
be free as in freedom.  If we stray very far from the basic guidelines
of the FSF, we may find ourselves slowly moving back to a proprietary
model, where everyone is trying to protect their individual contribution
at the expense of the community.  To that end, I believe that everyone
using GPLed software needs to understand that the free (no cost) part is
not what is important, but that the free (freedom) part is important.

Isn't that the intent of invariant sections, from the FSF point of view?
How can the importance of freedom be communicated more effectively?  So
far the general public doesn't seem to be getting it, thus RMS feels the
need to keep trying to inform them.  Rick, I feel certain that you
understand the importance of the freedom part, do you know of a better
way to communicate that to everyone, without adding the bloat to the
license?

-- 
Doug Jensen

Hi

> 
> > I think TLDP doesnt have any explicitly stated
> criteria for licenses
> > that are acceptable.
> 
> Oh yes we do.  It's in the Manifesto.

OK. I just read the license requirements and it seems
to be pretty informal. 

can we point to creative commons attribution share
alike license as the recommended license instead of
the boilerplate one. The advantage of using it is that
I dont need to go through the license everytime I find
a document.

I believe that all documents in tldp should be
modifiable as a requirement rather than as a mere
recommendation. It would require rewritting it from
scratch if the document is not maintained and the
author is not reachable

regards


________________________________________________________________________
Yahoo! India Matrimony: Find your partner online. http://yahoo.shaadi.com/india-matrimony/

On Thu, Apr 08, 2004 at 08:21:33PM +0100, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> > > I think TLDP doesnt have any explicitly stated
> > criteria for licenses
> > > that are acceptable.
> > 
> > Oh yes we do.  It's in the Manifesto.
> 
> OK. I just read the license requirements and it seems
> to be pretty informal. 

I wouldn't say "informal"...I'd say the reviewers are pretty darn strict
about what they let in for new documents with respect to licensing.

http://www.tldp.org/HOWTO/LDP-Reviewer-HOWTO/metadatareview.html
License and Legal Notice. A license is required. The LDP currently accepts
documents which are licensed under the GFDL, Creative Commons License and
the LDP License. If you are using a license that is not listed it will
need to be reviewed by our volunteers before the document is accepted. The
full text of the license is required. A link is not sufficient. You may
wish to include a disclaimer as part of the legal notice. A standard
disclaimer is available from the Author Guide.

Note: this applies to all /new/ documents. It is not a retroactive
requirement for existing documents...yet. ;)

emma

-- 
Emma Jane Hogbin
[[ 416 417 2868 ][ www.xtrinsic.com ]]

Hi


> exclusively Free software or not. I believe that
> Open Source tools to 
> replace many closed and proprietary tools, but that
> we should not starve 
> while we grow our new crops. I believe that we
> should not intentionally 
> restrict the use and availability of either tools or
> documentation because 
> it happens to disagree with out beliefs.


1) dont confuse rree software and free documentation

> 
> In short, I believe in an "inclusive" Linux
> Documentation Project. You 
> appear to disagree, being more than willing to chuck
> out a document based 
> on its license (not on whether its useful today or
> not, or whether it's 
> maintained or not), or based on whether the tool or
> program being 
> documented is Free or not. It is my perception that
> your personal beliefs 
> in this matter RESTRICT the freedoms of the LDP and
> of its users, thence of 
> most/all Linux users who use the LDP as a source of
> knowledge. It is 
> because I believe that (a) you are a good man with
> good intentions and (b) 
> that your restrictive beliefs are damaging to my
> view of the LDP's mission 
> and purpose, that I take such issue with them.
> 



2) Sometimes restricting freedoms is important to
preserve freedom in the long term. GPL is an example
of this kind of license. There is a very clear
problem. We are now having arbitrary licensed
documents inside LDP. what do you do if they are not
modifiable and not maintained?. what if they are not
legal at all?


> >I dont want to consult a lawyer just because
> >i want to distribute documents from LDP
> 
> What you *want* (and what I want) is entirely
> irrelevant. What will best 
> fulfill the mission and purpose of the Linux
> Documentation Project is all 
> that matters.

Yes. Thats what I am talking about. I just stating one
of the possible problems that anyone shouldnt have to
face.

regards
Rahul Sundaram


________________________________________________________________________
Yahoo! India Matrimony: Find your partner online. http://yahoo.shaadi.com/india-matrimony/