I think MJ is well within his rights to raise this as a problem though - whether or not you believe the GFDL is a free licence or not,

It is a free license (one can modify, use, distribute works licensed under the GFDL). It isn't a free _software_ license. Classifying all licenses as `free' or `not-free' is like saying `Intellecutal property', it can mean anything, and it can mean nothing.

The facts seem to be pretty clear from the conversation on Savannah, and I hope the Savannah admin made a mistake. It doesn't need us to inflame the situation, though, that will only cause more problems. It would be better to ask someone here to investigate and ask the Savannah admins to make clear what their policy actually is, before we starting discussing whether or not their policy is good or bad.

Well said.

It is a free license (one can modify, use, distribute works licensed under the GFDL). It isn't a free _software_ license.

The restrictions on modification (particularly the obnoxious advertising clause and the encyclopedia problem) and distribution are too heavy in the opinions of many people. Whether it's "free", who knows? Who cares? It's unusable for free software.

It is usable for free software. The GFDL has no `advertising clause', and has no `encyclopedia' problems, for some odd reason Wikipedia seems to thrive on the GFDL. There are no restrictions on how you can modify a GFDLed manual, the invariant sections are not part of the main manual.

The GFDL is perfectly usable for free software, despite your claims which you cannot even back up.

Classifying all licenses as `free' or `not-free' is like saying `Intellecutal property', it can mean anything, and it can mean nothing.

Actually, I agree with this, including the consequence that your claim FDL "is a free license" means nothing.

That doesn't follow. The GFDL is a _particular_ license, which is free. Classifying _all_ licenses as free or not free is what makes no sense.

Since the FDL, that just confuses some people who should be supporting debian and I try to discourage it.

Considering the problems with Debian and the inclusion of non-free software, one shouldn't support it. Better to support 100% free systems like UTUTO-e.

It is usable for free software. The GFDL has no `advertising clause',

So what would you call the expanded "credit" clause that seeks to entice legacy publishers to use FDL rather than a free software licence?

What do you mean? What `credit' clause? I don't see any `credit' clause in the GFDL. I don't even see any clause that tries to `entice legacy publishers to use the GFDL'. Please, back up your claims with quotes from the license.

and has no `encyclopedia' problems,

How could one include parts from the FDL'd Emacs manual in a FDL'd "Encyclopedia of GNU"? It looks like one must beg FSF's permission, as relying on a "fair dealing" defence would limit uses.

You simply include it, and follow the license. It seems that you haven't read the GFDL at all, maybe you should do that before basing your arguments on cloudy opinions. There are some conditions that you must adher to, but so it is with all licenses.

Rick Moen at TLDP raised this issue in 2004, in http://lists.tldp.org/index.cgi?1:mss:6986:200404:jicghldafngijibhnajo and I'm pretty sure that wasn't the first time it's been raised.

for some odd reason Wikipedia seems to thrive on the GFDL.

I don't think that's a good example. Even today, many sites seem to ignore the FDL's terms when modifying Wikipedia and the Wikipedia FDL story includes questionable relicensing to remove invariant sections. See near the end of http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/05/msg00565.html by Barak Pearlmutter: "In that case the GFDL served to discourage sharing. (It nearly prevented it entirely, had remedial measures of dubious legality not been taken.) [...] The Wikipedia used the GFDL because it was recommended by the FSF. They used it in its natural way. And then they got burnt."

So you go about and quoting things from people who are simply irrelevant. Why can't you show a single specific case? I don't see Wikipedia getting burnt, I see Wikipedia thriving. Please, once again, back up your claims, you have now continued making abusrd claims without any hint of evidence.

So you claim only the manual is freely modifiable (not the invariant sections), but the manual can't exist without the invariants. Is wany work which cannot be instantiated in an "all reasonable mods permitted" way ever free? (This is the "pickle-passing" question from debian-legal July 2003.)

Once again, this tries to incorrectly put everything under the same label. This is the error that you, and the Debian community has made.

The GFDL is perfectly usable for free software, despite your claims which you cannot even back up.

Sadly, I can back these up. I called the FDL incorrectly on day one, had this explained to me in excrutiating detail (I'm stubborn) and noted my reasons for changing my view. Because of the sheer volume of material, there are numerous FAQs that you could read, but I'll try to answer as time permits if you're unwilling to research it.

So please, back it up. If it is so simple, you could atleast point me to one of these `numerous FAQs', I'm not sure what they try to answer. FAQ's aren't software after all, and your claim is that the GFDL is `unusable for free software'. So once again, I ask you for concrete examples.

UTUTO-e has included non-free software programs in error (such as Macromedia Flash and Sun Java - sadly http://gnu-friends.org/comments/2004/4/14/143042/957?pid=4#5 has vanished) and still includes non-free software manuals.

It includes manuals for non-free software? That seems silly. Could you point out which manuals so that they can be removed?

People make mistakes, if one tries to fix them, then all is good. Debian refuses to fix their mistakes by continued promotion of non-free software, and the exclusion of free documentation.

By design, it's not a 100% free software distribution. I can't check their current status, as their bug tracker now requires a username and password.

By design, it is 100% free software, compared to Debian where one must include the non-free section to get proper documentation to programs.

Debian doesn't include non-free software in the distribution, promises not to and whenever it happens, that's a serious bug. The debian bug tracker doesn't require passwords for most use.

Debian does include non-free software. It promotes its usage by giving space to host it. Even Fedora is a better bet when it comes to completely free GNU/Linux systems from the looks. That the Debian community tries to brush this away with `Oh, but it isn't in the _MAIN_ repository! So all is OK'. What would you think about the GNU project and the GNU system having a specific section hosting non-free software? I'm quite sure that you would think that would be hypocritical, atleast I would. Debian has grown in this regard, from having the non-free software section enabled by default, then by asking users about it, and now simply removing it from any queries. But it is still not as good as it could get, and untill that day, Debian is sadly not a 100% free software system.

Considering the hostility one recives from the Debian community when on tries to raise this, it might be a good thing for people to switch to other systems, that respect users freedoms; like for example UTUTO-e, BLAG or Dynebolic.

mjray clearly hinging at fdl manuals: > vanished) and still includes non-free software manuals.

alfred smizd not getting the hint (or showing not to): > It includes manuals for non-free software? That seems silly. > Could you point out which manuals so that they can be removed?

I'm not sure what you mean, `non-free software manuals' to me reads as `non-free software manuals', i.e. manuals for non-free software. If MJ meant something else, he is free to clarify.

Later, after following the discussion in debian-legal and elsewhere, after thinking about it ourselves, we came to the conclusion that it has been a very risky choice, and we switched away from it in the next edition of the book. What follows, though, is my own position, and I don't know how much it is shared by other involved parties.

Could you share these conclusions? I have read the discussion on debian-legal, and it has been a one sided discussion starting from the wrong spot.

The main problem of the FDL, for authors, is in failing the copyleft mechanism. The invariant sections and cover texts, that can neither be modified nor be removed, allow people to make derived works whose technical contents can't be folded back in the original manual.

This is not entierly true, you can fold it back, but then you also have to fold the invariant sections. I think this is a prefectly valid thing to require.

Debian does include non-free software. It promotes its usage by giving space to host it. Even Fedora is a better bet [...]

Flame bait, I'm sorry. Same sin you contest to your party.

Sorry, but that is the simple truth of the matter. The Debian community loves to twist the words so that is `ok' to distribute non-free software by claiming that it isn't part of Debian; which is maybe why you consider it flame bait. I'm actually an avid Debian user, and it is quite frustrating to use it since I cannot in good heart recommend it to my friends or people who wish to use GNU/Linux.

Let's agree to disagree, withough trying to read the other party's opinions with the wrong semantics (a problem that happens too often in our environment, bts).

This I can agree to. :-)

Me:

Later, after following the discussion in debian-legal and elsewhere, after thinking about it ourselves, we came to the conclusion that it has been a very risky choice, and we switched away from it in the next edition of the book.

Alfred:

Could you share these conclusions?

As I wrote, we switched away from the FDL, whose major problem in this specific context is the risk of proprietarization by third parties.

What risk for proprietarization? I can't see how you could make a free document into a non-free one.

As for the discussion in debian-legal, the position statement already linked (http://people.debian.org/~srivasta/Position_Statement.xhtml) is a good summary, although it became much bigger than what one can easily digest in reasonable time (I didn't, actually).

That position statement is sadly complete bunk, I have yet to get the time to write a refutation for it. Many, if not all, of the arguments there are based on a complete misunderstanding of the license, and what it actually says.

Me:

[...] derived works whose technical contents can't be folded back in the original manual.

Alfred:

This is not entierly true, you can fold it back, but then you also have to fold the invariant sections. I think this is a prefectly valid thing to require.

I disagree. If the competing publishing house adds a chapter and a cover text stating that it's "A Nestlè book" (just to use fake names), I can't really reuse their added chapter in my next edition.

Why not? What is stopping you? As far as I can see it, you do not want to give credit to `Nestlè' for having written the chapter, one could compare this to refusing to include the copyright notice in a program, or similar.

Cheers!

...

It's clear from the context that he means gfdl manuals. You should have learnt that "software" to you means "program", while to him it means "everything except my desk". [...]

That's a lie about me. I guess that's why you think I'm difficult to deal with. Stop lying about my views and all will be sweeter.

Ok, I was joking. I forgot to clarify that and I apologize -- probably I shouldn't have joked at all. Your view, as I got it, should be "all digital information is software". This is clearly different and incompatible with the meaning of "software" given by others in this thread (though others share your ideas). That was my point.

/alessandro

I'm not sure what you mean, `non-free software manuals' to me reads as `non-free software manuals', i.e. manuals for non-free software. If MJ meant something else, he is free to clarify.

Please do not use latin on an English-language list, especially incorrectly. I meant non-free software manuals as manuals which are not free software.

The use of id est there was correct. Please, stop making up things. You are obviously as hard headed as me. The usage of `id est' in English is perfectly valid. And my usage here was infact correct.

Your messages are starting to be more and more like flame baits, and are simply distracting from the main issue. Can we please get back to that instead?

Even if you have to bite your tongue - don't be provocative.

And my tounge is bleeding quite badly right now.

I would say more, regardless of the discussion itself the reaction of Alfred is really unacceptable if he is really representing GNU. And I am saying this as a real Free Software supporter who has trouble justifying it many times due to the way our own people present themselves.

Really sad.

On Fri, 2006-02-10 at 23:44 +0100, Alessandro Rubini wrote:

Alfred, while MJ Ray may be difficult to deal with, it seems to me you are following just the same path, like each of you isn't understanding what the other part is saying, while I'm sure you understand each other perfectly.

This is one of several examples:

mjray clearly hinging at fdl manuals:

...

vanished) and still includes non-free software manuals.

alfred smizd not getting the hint (or showing not to):

...

It includes manuals for non-free software? That seems silly. Could you point out which manuals so that they can be removed?

I'll bring my experience as author, touching a different point than freeness/unfreeness, where there will never be agreement. I used the FDL for a printed book when it was fresh new; I pushed for it with my co-author and the relevant person in the publishing house, at the end all of us were convinced it had to be the best choice, main reason was because it was a FSF thing and thus obviously right.

Later, after following the discussion in debian-legal and elsewhere, after thinking about it ourselves, we came to the conclusion that it has been a very risky choice, and we switched away from it in the next edition of the book. What follows, though, is my own position, and I don't know how much it is shared by other involved parties.

The main problem of the FDL, for authors, is in failing the copyleft mechanism. The invariant sections and cover texts, that can neither be modified nor be removed, allow people to make derived works whose technical contents can't be folded back in the original manual. We had no cover texts and a competing publishing house could republish, bringing slightly up to date the material and sticking their own "a gnu manual" as cover text, or an invariant about how copyleft kills economy, thus preventing reuse of the added material by the original authors or publishing house (if you ask to explain or "back up" my use of "prevent", I won't).

Sure we could have though about it from the beginning, sticking our own cover texts and invariant sections. Does this mean that the only way to enforce copyleft with FDL is by sticking ads to the material? Isn't it like patenting ideas just to prevent others from doing it first?

I agree the non-functional material is probably better protected by denying modifications, but unremovable invariant and cover material isn't the right solution, in my opinion. Removable invariants may probably be, but the current FDL doesn't allow removing invariants or cover texts.

...

Debian does include non-free software. It promotes its usage by giving space to host it. Even Fedora is a better bet [...]

Flame bait, I'm sorry. Same sin you contest to your party.

/alessandro _______________________________________________ Discussion mailing list Discussion@fsfeurope.org https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion

I don't have anything private against you, I have it in the sense that you are representing gnu and/or fsf-europe (or not? Georg?), that is why I make my criticism public. If I had a private insult for you I would send it privately...

On Sat, 2006-02-11 at 01:04 +0100, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:

I would say more, regardless of the discussion itself the reaction of Alfred is really unacceptable if he is really representing GNU. And I am saying this as a real Free Software supporter who has trouble justifying it many times due to the way our own people present themselves.

If you have specific crititicm against me, please take it in private.

Xavier,

Am Freitag, den 10.02.2006, 15:39 -0800 schrieb Xavier Amatriain:

I would say more, regardless of the discussion itself the reaction of Alfred is really unacceptable if he is really representing GNU.

This is a public discussion list, and everybody talking here voices his own opinion.

There are dozens of people with a @gnu.org email address, and I am not aware that Alfred is in any way entitled to represent GNU in this discussion (nor have I seen him claim that, btw), just like I don't regard MJ Ray as representing Debian as a whole.

And, to avoid further misunderstandings: none of them represents the Free Software Foundation Europe.

Thanks, Reinhard

I'm easy to deal with, as long as: - you don't lie about me, my views or my work; - you don't mind a spade being called a spade; - you're willing to be constructive; - you are tolerant and have a sense of humour.

None of which you apply to others; so there is no reason why I or anyone else should apply these things to you.

...

So what would you call the expanded "credit" clause that seeks to entice legacy publishers to use FDL rather than a free software licence?

What do you mean? What `credit' clause?

Clause 4.

If you are going to quote the license, do it properly.

I don't see any `credit' clause in the GFDL.

Do you really see nothing requiring credit of the licensors?

No, I don't. Try doing a search for the word.

I don't even see any clause that tries to `entice legacy publishers to use the GFDL'. [...]

That's always been one of the main motives for the FDL. See: "The GFDL is meant as a way to enlist commercial publishers [...]" - Richard Stallman, "Why publishers should use the GNU FDL", online at http://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-gfdl.html

Once again, you are simply ignoring anything that was written and making up things. There is no _CLAUSE_ in the GFDL to entice anything of this sort. What the motive is, was or will be is totally irrelevant!

Please, MJ, I once again ask you to actually read what is written. I'm getting quite tired to pointing out such things to you, and it seems that you are on purpose trying to misread everything in a light that suits your agenda.

...

and has no `encyclopedia' problems,

How could one include parts from the FDL'd Emacs manual in a FDL'd "Encyclopedia of GNU"? It looks like one must beg FSF's permission, as relying on a "fair dealing" defence would limit uses.

You simply include it, and follow the license.

If one tried to include part of the Emacs manual in a work about GNU in general, one could not follow the licence: the GNU Manifesto and the GPL would be about the main topic, so no longer Secondary, so could not be included as Invariant, which is required by the licence.

Why are you making up absurd cases? Have you actually read the license? Specifically, the bits about modification?

It seems that you haven't read the GFDL at all, maybe you should do that before basing your arguments on cloudy opinions. [...]

I have read the FDL closely, more than some @gnu it seems.

You haven't read it at all. It is perfectly clear from the way you are misreading everything one writes, so it is impossible that you have actually read the GFDL closely.

...

I don't think that's a good example. Even today, many sites seem to ignore the FDL's terms when modifying Wikipedia and the Wikipedia FDL story includes questionable relicensing to remove invariant sections. See near the end of http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/05/msg00565.html by Barak Pearlmutter: [...]

So you go about and quoting things from people who are simply irrelevant. Why can't you show a single specific case? I don't see Wikipedia getting burnt, I see Wikipedia thriving. [...]

You see nothing wrong with a project leading arbitrarily relicensing a project that they hold no copyright assignments for? If so, we're probably never going to agree on an example and I'm surprised that someone @gnu doesn't see problems of relicensing without CAs.

Please, once again, back up your claims. You are throwing claims back and forth without a single proof. This isn't the first time you do this. You also once again simply ignore what was written by me and invent some fantasy scenario.

[...] If it is so simple, you could atleast point me to one of these `numerous FAQs', I'm not sure what they try to answer.

http://people.debian.org/~srivasta/Position_Statement.html and http://home.twcny.rr.com/nerode/neroden/fdl.html for starters.

Both are full of errors, and both authors have misread the GFDL complteley.

FAQ's aren't software after all,

Some FAQs are software (some are even kept as programs, either in general-purpose languages or specialised ones like latex or PostScript.)

FAQ's are not software, a computer cannot run a FAQ. Stop pretending hat it can. Are you really this ignorant of how a computer works?

and your claim is that the GFDL is `unusable for free software'. So once again, I ask you for concrete examples.

As an example, I suggest all FDL manuals, none of which are free software, whether programs or otherwise.

Since manuals are not software, they cannot be free software or non-free software, they are neither.

Here's the parse tree I intended: (((non-)(free software)) (manuals))

Ok. Then the sentence makes even less sense, since manuals are not software, they cannot be classifed as "non-free software", or "free software".

People make mistakes, if one tries to fix them, then all is good. Debian refuses to fix their mistakes by continued promotion of non-free software, and the exclusion of free documentation.

Debian does not promote non-free software. It just is on some debian mirrors, which is a similar situation to GNU mirrors.

Then please explain what this non-free directory on ftp.debian.org contains.

"If one tries to fix them, then all is good" yet you give debian developers no credit for trying to drop non-free regularly.

Once again you are trying to twist things that are written to something totally different. Please, stop it. It is getting boring.

Excluding so-called "free documentation" adware is a feature not a bug. Free software needs manuals that are free software too.

Since manuals are not software, they cannot be `free software'. What part of this do you simply not wish to understand?

Debian does include non-free software.

It's not in the distribution, it's not on the CDs.

It is in the distribution, and it has been in the distribution since `bo' atleast. That you simply ignore the fact that Debian is hosting it, distributing the software, is something different.

It promotes its usage by giving space to host it. Even Fedora is a better bet when it comes to completely free GNU/Linux systems from the looks. That the Debian community tries to brush this away with `Oh, but it isn't in the _MAIN_ repository! So all is OK'. What would you think about the GNU project and the GNU system having a specific section hosting non-free software? I'm quite sure that you would think that would be hypocritical, atleast I would.

According to http://www.gnu.org/server/mirror.html#MirrorFTP the hub of the GNU mirror network (and so the equivalent of ftp-master.debian.org) is ftp.ibiblio.org, which hosts software far more proprietary than even non-free on debian mirrors.

Yes, I do think it's hypocritical that some @gnu take such a hard line against debian while most of the GNU mirrors do the same.

Why aren't you calling on GNU to stop promoting non-free software?

Where does the GNU project promote non-free software? Please quote line and verse. You have been incapable of quoting anything up to this point.

The GNU project, cannot control what mirrors host. They can control what they host. Debian does host non-free software, just go and poke in ftp.debian.org. Now try to find non-free software on ftp.gnu.org.

Yet again you make absurd comparisons that have NOTHING to do with the issue at hand, and have no relation to reality. You are obviously very confused to think that a mirror is the same place as ftp.gnu.org.

Considering the hostility one recives from the Debian community when on tries to raise this, it might be a good thing for people to switch to other systems, that respect users freedoms; like for example UTUTO-e, BLAG or Dynebolic.

I think you mean "effective freedoms". Some freedoms seem to be considered unnecessary by UTUTO-e.

Please back it up.

BLAG's pretty good, although both it and Dynebolic seem to include software called "non-free" by RMS in the past[1].

`in the past', so it might have been removed; we don't know. Comapre this to Debian, which still includes non-free software.

Considering the hostility one recieves from the GNU community when discussing manuals, one can see why others think it a good thing to switch to other licences.

What hostility? It is you who are making absurd claims, inventing scenarios that are simply impossible to achive. I have asked you several times to produce a shred of evidence for your claims, you have yet to come up with a single one. They only hostility is from you, and your inability to actually have a level headed discussion without resorting to false statements.

As you claim to understand the FDL much better than others, could you explain whether or not the FDL would allow this case at all, and if so, what it would mean for the mentioned sections (of course, backing this up with references to the FDL text).

I didn't make such a claim, or even implied it.

As you claim to understand the FDL much better than others, could you explain whether or not the FDL would allow this case at all, and if so, what it would mean for the mentioned sections (of course, backing this up with references to the FDL text).

I didn't make such a claim, or even implied it.

If you accuse others of not even having read it based on your interpretations, and constantly express your interpretations of it as facts, not opinions, you clearly do imply it.

Once again, I did not make any such claims. Please, stop insisting on it. I claimed that _MJ_ hadn't read the GFDL. So once again, stop accusing me of things that you perfectly know I didn't say or even imply.

Now, are you going to answer to the main points, instead of picking on side-issues again?

I will answer it, in due time; unless you wish something that was written in haste.

I now fail to see why I should continue this discussion with you. I was hoping for a level headed one and you seemed to want the same thing, but now you have resorted to the same low level tactic as MJ.

I now fail to see why I should continue this discussion with you. I was hoping for a level headed one and you seemed to want the same thing, but now you have resorted to the same low level tactic as MJ.

I asked some clear questions. You do not answer them. Who's resorting to "low level tactic"?

I was going to answer them, but since you are to busy playing a low level tactic game, I will refrain from sending my message. Please do not send any further messages to me on this topic, I will not answer them. I will send the message I promised to send since it is partially written, so I will finish it, but please do not respond to it; I do not wish to continue this discussion with you anymore since you are not capable of having a level headed discussion.

Sorry.

"Alfred M. Szmidt" ams@gnu.org

...

...

I don't see any `credit' clause in the GFDL.

Do you really see nothing requiring credit of the licensors?

No, I don't. Try doing a search for the word.

It's in the licence, both explicitly and implicitly.

...

"The GFDL is meant as a way to enlist commercial publishers [...]"

• Richard Stallman, "Why publishers should use the GNU FDL",

online at http://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-gfdl.html

Once again, you are simply ignoring anything that was written and making up things. There is no _CLAUSE_ in the GFDL to entice anything of this sort. What the motive is, was or will be is totally irrelevant!

I find it hard to believe that RMS started out with a particular aim for the FDL and then FSF didn't include anything to achieve it. Anyway, the publicly-explained intent of the drafter and licensor plays a large part in copyright (in case law systems, at least) and so Eben Moglen's affadavit in Progress Software Corp. v. MySQL AB, Civil Action No. 01-11031 PBS was relevant.

[...] to actually read what is written. [...] seems that you are on purpose trying to misread everything [...] Have you actually read [...] You haven't read it at all. It is perfectly clear from the way you are misreading everything one writes, so it is impossible that you have actually read the GFDL closely. [...]

...

...

[...] If it is so simple, you could atleast point me to one of these `numerous FAQs', I'm not sure what they try to answer.

...

http://people.debian.org/~srivasta/Position_Statement.html and http://home.twcny.rr.com/nerode/neroden/fdl.html for starters.

Both are full of errors, and both authors have misread the GFDL complteley.

I think using "both" to describe about a dozen authors shows how well those documents were read. :-(

If so many of us mere authors have completely misread the FDL and mistaken it for an adware licence, then it is confusing at best and should be rephrased as soon as possible. Authors should be able to understand the licence themselves, in case they need to help enforce it in future.

[...]

...

Here's the parse tree I intended: (((non-)(free software)) (manuals))

Ok. Then the sentence makes even less sense, since manuals are not software, they cannot be classifed as "non-free software", or "free software".

So, we agree they are not free software, but for different reasons. We should agree that debian is doing the right thing to uphold its promise of producing a 100% free software distribution and not apply higher standards to debian.org than gnu.org. The dispute is really that some want debian to change its promise, but that's happened for years, in different ways.

[skipping some unattributed quotes, repeats and unsupported claims]

The GNU project, cannot control what mirrors host. They can control what they host. Debian does host non-free software, just go and poke in ftp.debian.org. Now try to find non-free software on ftp.gnu.org.

Yet again you make absurd comparisons that have NOTHING to do with the issue at hand, and have no relation to reality. You are obviously very confused to think that a mirror is the same place as ftp.gnu.org.

ftp.debian.org has address 128.101.80.133 133.80.101.128.in-addr.arpa domain name pointer debian-mirror.cs.umn.edu.

It feels entirely reasonable to compare a major debian mirror with a major GNU mirror like ftp.ibiblio.org. I don't think having A records for the mirrors makes a significant difference. Comparing ftp.gnu.org with ftp.debian.org is comparing apples and oranges.

Would you praise debian if ftp.debian.org pointed at a mirror that doesn't carry any non-free software?

"Alfred M. Szmidt" ams@gnu.org [skip much]

...

...

Ok. Then the sentence makes even less sense, since manuals are not software, they cannot be classifed as "non-free software", or "free software".

...

So, we agree they are not free software, but for different reasons.

To be precis, I'm not agreeing that they are not `free software'. They are simply not software, period. Be it free, non-free, propietary, etc. It is like calling a house for `non car', it isn't a car to begin with...

It is perfectly true to say that a house is not a petrol car, if you don't think it's any sort of car.

...

We should agree that debian is doing the right thing to uphold its promise of producing a 100% free software distribution and not apply higher standards to debian.org than gnu.org. The dispute is really that some want debian to change its promise, but that's happened for years, in different ways.

Since Debian is not upholding that promise, I cannot agree with this. I wish I could.

Debian delivers on its promise: To get a 100% free software distribution from debian, get the official distribution by download or from any of the places listed on www.debian.org.

You can't get a 100% free software distribution from GNU today.

...

Would you praise debian if ftp.debian.org pointed at a mirror that doesn't carry any non-free software?

Does or does not ftp.debian.org carry non-free software? Does or does not ftp.gnu.org carry non-free software?

Clearly, the answer is `Yes. No'. You are jumping into the realm of itsy bitsy semantics.

Nonsense. You're playing silly DNS configuration games. ftp.debian.org (aka debian-mirror.cs.umn.edu) and ftp.gnu.org are not equivalent. If you compared that debian mirror with the main GNU mirror (ibiblio), you'd see that both carry non-free software.

Gareth Bowker tgb@fsfe.org

Would it not be fairer to compare ftp://ftp.debian.org/debian/ with ftp://ftp.ibiblio.org/pub/gnu/ ? I see there's ftp://ftp.debian.org/debian/dists/stable/non-free/ under the debian directory. I don't see such a directory under gnu.

Are those two comparisons fair?

Fairer, but not really fair, for at least two reasons: 1. GNU doesn't label things not meeting its standard for free software so clearly - they are mixed into many tarballs; 2. That debian dir contains over 10000 packages AIUI, including the free software operating system distributions and other material, while the gnu dir contains only about 250 packages AFAICT and no complete operating system distribution (since the debian ISOs went).

Hope that helps,

Debian delivers on its promise: To get a 100% free software distribution from debian, get the official distribution by download or from any of the places listed on www.debian.org.

Then please explain what ftp.debian.org contains, I consider that a broken promise. That you simply state that `non-free' is not part of Debian is simply not true. If it isn't, remove it. I'll be quite a happy person when that happens, until that day, Debian GNU/Linux and ports are not 100% free software.

You can't get a 100% free software distribution from GNU today.

Of course you can't, the goal of the GNU project isn't to create a distribution. It is to create a system. And as it happens, you can get a version of the GNU system, two infact.

Does or does not ftp.debian.org carry non-free software? Does or does not ftp.gnu.org carry non-free software?

Clearly, the answer is `Yes. No'. You are jumping into the realm of itsy bitsy semantics.

Nonsense. You're playing silly DNS configuration games. ftp.debian.org (aka debian-mirror.cs.umn.edu) and ftp.gnu.org are not equivalent. If you compared that debian mirror with the main GNU mirror (ibiblio), you'd see that both carry non-free software.

The only person playing willynilly games is you who cannot accept the plain truth that Debian does infact include non-free software.

Cheers.

The only person playing willynilly games is you who cannot accept the plain truth that Debian does infact include non-free software.

Of course it contains non-free software. Removal of FDL-only licensed stuff was scheduled for the next release.

FDL licensed documentation isn't non-free software, it isn't even free software. It is documentation.

Nor is FDL-licensed documentation removed, it is _moved_ to the non-free section. Which is part of Debian, desite whatever claims people will make.

Cheers.

On Tue, 2006-02-14 at 23:28 +0100, Bernhard R. Link wrote:

Here we differ. There are just different definitions of what software means. But this does not change the fact that freedom matters. There are of course different forms of freedom needed for different things.

I think you're probably right here, and one of the things the FDL didn't really get right was that it was attempting to treat the digital and non-digital forms of a work equally, when functionally they are not.

So there are many reasons to not make a distinguish between all those bits contained in an OS by some undefinable criterias wheather they cause the creation of something the CPU interprets (machine code) or to be interpreted by something interpreted by the CPU (scripts) one the one side, and things interpreted by something interpreted by the CPU (images, texts, ...).

I actually think you're confusing two issues here. The first is, is there some standard of freedom which should apply to all digital content? And the second is, assuming there is a standard, is it possible to apply it to any digital content?

Let's assume the first part for convenience - let's say that we have some given standard of freedom, and that we think all digital content should be upheld to that standard. Is the second part true?

I would say not - I don't believe it's possible to uphold a standard of freedom without distinguishing between "all those bits" ;).

As an example, let's say I have a simple BSD-style licence which allows me to modify and redistribute a digital work. If I apply it to a digital photograph, is that photo free? I would say it pretty much is.

However, if you apply that licence to an executable binary of Emacs (for example), I would say that is not free - sure, in theory I have the freedoms, but in practise without the source I'm stuffed.

Both the photo and Emacs binary are "just a load of bits", but without distinguishing them somehow it's difficult to talk about whether one or the other is "free". I don't see how it's possible to say the photo is free, but the binary is not, without distinguishing them somehow.

Because of this, I would find it difficult to talk about "free software" when "software" includes a variety of non-executable works - I believe it's over-generalisation.

Cheers,

Alex.

Eloquently written, but I disagree with several points (suprise! :-)

FDL licensed documentation isn't non-free software, it isn't even free software. It is documentation.

Here we differ. There are just different definitions of what software means. But this does not change the fact that freedom matters. There are of course different forms of freedom needed for different things.

So that one has a starting point on how you base your reasoning: How do you define software?

Now variable names we better forget and look at comments, they are clearly documentation in every sense I can think of.

I disagree strongly with this. Comments describe the code operation, documentation describes the whole program's operation with no/little knowledge of thei nternals of the program. Comments are exactly `comments', small reminders for the programmer to know why something is written in this particular way. Think of it as small notes in the margin of a book.

When one writes comments, on almost always has no intention for anyone other than the `initiated' to read them, and are scattered all over the place often using cryptic notations and what not.

Now, there are types of `comments' which are meant for use in documentation, the most notable example I can think of is doc-strings in Lisp, where you document what the function does in the body of it, so it can be extracted into say a manual, or read by the end user.

The main difference between comments and documentation is really to whom they are directed. Comments are directed for the person who is editing the actual code, and documentation is for the person wishing to learn about it.

Or at least not those forms of pseudocode in the documentation that are more speech than pseudocode (Good finding any criterium for separating). And then there are not only compilers, but interpreters, where you may have restrictions on the size. You might want to remove all comments (and all invariant secions those documentation contained, as we all know, documentation does not need the same freedoms, *cough*) to put it on some bootfloppy. Well, all comments except that one descriping the boot parameters people may need there. So do I have to rewrite that comment under a free license?

Since a comment isn't documentation, no. :-)

But software is not only the source code with its comments, it need more things to work (even though one may say those things are not part of the software, as it is no program and thus not software by some definitions): one needs labels for some ui elements, catalogs with translations of those, if it is a gui also icons, contents of help- tags popping up, perhaps even some animations showing what the program does. Those form a integral part of the program, and being able to change the program logics but not those ui elements is annoying, as if forcing to separate them, as some variant may want to embed the icons or help texts within the source. Thus those things should clearly have all the freedoms attached to them the program code has.

I don't know if it is that clear. I'd be ok if a recording of a song was verbatim only in a program.

Let's look from the other side. Common (well, still quite common, call me a bit old fashioned if you like) forms to write documentation are systems hardly to distinguish from programing languages by people grown up with "ms word". While I personally seldom write in postscript due to its lack for German umlauts, I regulary use groff or LateX, with non-trivial formatting "programs" in them, sometimes separated in a good semantic mark-up style, sometimes tightly interwoven with the actual texts. Do those formatting/text-processing programs within the documentation's source need different freedoms than other programs?

I wouldn't call troff/latex files for `program source. They all spit out a static file, one could compare it to a file with values in it, that you give to a program, which then spits out a fractal image. Is the file with the values, just numbers, source code? Or even a program? Of course not. A LaTeX/groff file is more akin to a very long parameter list (this is stretching it a bit, but that is what it kinda is)

So there is documentation within programs, and there are programs within documentation, and many things hard to distinguish. And many things shifting between those. Take a documentation of some interface, add some machine parsable tags to generate headers file from it, which freedoms do you need?

Use, modify, copy. All of which the licenses from the FSF allow.

So there are many reasons to not make a distinguish between all those bits contained in an OS by some undefinable criterias wheather they cause the creation of something the CPU interprets (machine code) or to be interpreted by something interpreted by the CPU (scripts) one the one side, and things interpreted by something interpreted by the CPU (images, texts, ...).

This is the eniterly wrong way to look at it. This message is just a stream of bits that get interpeted in one way or another. Does this mean that you should have any right to modify what I have written into saying something that I have not? Ofcourse not. Yet, all the `bits' I used can be understood by an interpeter if I reorder them enough. Does this mean that what I have written is a program? No. Does this mean that other rights apply? Obviously.

You are (correct me if I am wrong) basing your argument that if one cannot make clear distinction between data and data, then it all should be treated the same way. This really makes no sense... It is trivial to clearly see the difference between documentation, a program and a poem.

Although many people today believe the documentation is not part of the software.

If you would have written `part of the program distribution image', then I'd agree. But since I think that documentation is clearly not software, I cannot agree.

But I think this is mostly caused by the bad habit of propietary program distribution without source, as I tried to describe above that source and documentation are some entity, and if you are a mere consumer without the potential to construct, program and documentation tend to be seen as seperate entitites.

I don't know, most old systems came with both source code and a truck of manuals.

But even if you prefer to not call anything that is documentation software, all the things stored on computers to make them operate and to make humans able to operate them, should be free.

I'd like to hear the definiton of `free' here. Since we are discussing the GFDL, I should note that the GFDL doesn't prohibit how you operate your computer. Neither does a copy of the GNU Manifesto which cannot be modifed.

Programs, should obviously be free (software, just to be clear what freedoms I mean), since they actually change the operation of the computer.

Nor is FDL-licensed documentation removed, it is _moved_ to the non-free section. Which is part of Debian, desite whatever claims people will make.

Well, here we come back to names and definitions. The Debian project are many people, which non-free stuff is clearly not part.

Sorry, but `non-free' is part of the Debian project.

Debian GNU/Linux (main) is 100% free software, yes. But Debian as a whole is not, and not even Debian GNU/Linux as a whole. Since non-free is part of the Debian project.

But Debian does not promise those will be free, but that it will create a 100% free operating system, which it really tries.

I'd like to know what `free' means in your vocubalary. You have switched between `free software' and `free', it seems to me that they are the say for you.

On the other hand it is just practical to keep the Debian promise and the Debian distribution pure.

This is simply a false claim, and is easy to disprove: ftp.debian.org/.../non-free. Debian has repatedly broken this promise.

There is no pressure to knowlingly include or keep non-free stuff, so people do not easily get caught, finding themselves depending on stuff they do not have allowance to use the way they want. (Didn't that ututo-e distributed by ftp.gnu.org not contain some non-free graphic card drivers some time ago?)

I think you really should stop trying get on the moral high ground, Debian has consitently distributed non-free software since I started using it which was in the `bo' era. That you then try to accuse someone for a something which is a simple error, or misjudgment, is simply saddening. We all make them, Debian on the other hand _explicitly_ allows non-free software in its distribution (that you, and other Debian developer, simply try to redefine what constitues the system just to justify the inclusion of non-free software is far worse than by error including non-free software).

Cheers.

...

Now variable names we better forget and look at comments, they are clearly documentation in every sense I can think of.

I disagree strongly with this. [...] The main difference between comments and documentation is really to whom they are directed. Comments are directed for the person who is editing the actual code, and documentation is for the person wishing to learn about it.

Those distrinctions are a bit fuzzy. Especially as many manuals also include hacking-howtos, or information about the internal data structures and workflows. (And with free software libraries, users are even on the same language level, so things get even more fuzzy).

I think you are trying to put documentation and programs into one box. One should always examine what kind of work one is handling before licensing it. Sometimes it makes sense to use the modifed-BSD license, sometimes the Lesser GPL, sometimes the GPL. Same applies for `text', some `text' is better to be under the GPL, some is better to be under the GFDL.

But software is not only the source code with its comments, it need more things to work (even though one may say those things are not part of the software, as it is no program and thus not software by some definitions): one needs labels for some ui elements, catalogs with translations of those, if it is a gui also icons, contents of help- tags popping up, perhaps even some animations showing what the program does. Those form a integral part of the program, and being able to change the program logics but not those ui elements is annoying, as if forcing to separate them, as some variant may want to embed the icons or help texts within the source. Thus those things should clearly have all the freedoms attached to them the program code has.

I don't know if it is that clear. I'd be ok if a recording of a song was verbatim only in a program.

Well, the need for freedoms for program source code is not clear either. Many people distpute that.

How are the freedoms for program source code not clear? I should be able to control what my machine does, what it does, and tell people what it did.

Having to throw away some sound effects for some embedded device, when it would still fit with some lossy compression in there is not what I call freedom.

Verbatim != invariant. You are confusing the two things here I think.

What about the following piece of a manpage I once wrote, is it still only parameters?

Yes, since the output is static. The output of a program isn't.

So there is documentation within programs, and there are programs within documentation, and many things hard to distinguish. And many things shifting between those. Take a documentation of some interface, add some machine parsable tags to generate headers file from it, which freedoms do you need?

Use, modify, copy. All of which the licenses from the FSF allow.

The free software licenses do. The FDL does not allow modification in reasonable ways. (plus has some glitches with copying).

How doesn't it allow for it in a reasonable way? Last time I checked, I could modify a document in anyway I choose.

I hope that the FDL is unsuitable for code has not to be discussed.

Nobody has even claimed that it is remotley suitable for source code. Different works need different licenses.

So there are many reasons to not make a distinguish between all those bits contained in an OS by some undefinable criterias wheather they cause the creation of something the CPU interprets (machine code) or to be interpreted by something interpreted by the CPU (scripts) one the one side, and things interpreted by something interpreted by the CPU (images, texts, ...).

This is the eniterly wrong way to look at it. This message is just a stream of bits that get interpeted in one way or another. Does this mean that you should have any right to modify what I have written into saying something that I have not? Ofcourse not.

If you make me depend on this message, I want those rights. People differ on what needs to be free, and I can accept different opinions. But if functional works are restricted, that might be legal, but I'll still call it immoral.

I think we agree here, I think. But documentation isn't functional.

Does this mean that other rights apply? Obviously.

That is a reasoning I cannot uphold. Your message may not need the freedom as much as some technical stuff (though more freedom is still good), but that has almost nothing to do weather it is a program or not.

How can more freedom to change what I wrote be good? Would you be ok if you for example wrote "I Bernhard R. Link like dragons", and then someone comes and changes this (the text is licensed under the GPL or similar) to "I Bernhard R. Link hate freedom"? I don't think anyone has such a right.

The criteria is that there is no need to mix it with something that is mixed with something that might be mixed with code. Your bits are by that license unsuitable for programs, thus they are unsuitable for documention (be it programs, software, non of those or whatever) shiped together with things dedicated to run a computer. A (for me simple) criterion to decise what definitly needs those freedom is simple: If it is sensible to include it in an OS, it definitely needs those rights attached. (Either it is unneeded cruft that does not belong there anyway, or it has the possiblity to limit me in an immoral way).

Anything that is of a digital nature is sensible to include in an OS. This does not mean that you, or anyone, should have the right to change for example the GNU manifest to state something entierly different, while still making it sound as if it is the GNU project who wrote it.

You are (correct me if I am wrong) basing your argument that if one cannot make clear distinction between data and data, then it all should be treated the same way. This really makes no sense... It is trivial to clearly see the difference between documentation, a program and a poem.

Sorry, this is neither trivial, nor easy. And I bluntly belief it is not possible at all.

I find it quite easy: Computer runs program, human reads text. I would like to see a single human who can actually run a program of sufficent size.

I'd like to hear the definiton of `free' here. Since we are discussing the GFDL, I should note that the GFDL doesn't prohibit how you operate your computer. Neither does a copy of the GNU Manifesto which cannot be modifed.

The GFDL does not prohibit me to operate my computer. But stuff only licensed under the GFDL and no free software license prohibit me to help others to operate their computer.

How? You are allowed to read a GFDL document, modify it, and redistribute it. How does it prohibit you from not helping others operate their computer?

(Debian prohibits people from operating their computers by the exclusion of documentation from `main' and forcing users to add the `non-free' section just so that they can have the documentation for their programs)

Cheers (and I suggest you get a LP or a CD with Simon and Garfunkel for good music :-)

Yes, since the output is static. The output of a program isn't.

Then a program to generate the prime numbers or calulate the digits of pi or whatever similar is documentation.

No, since the output, i.e. program, isn't static. You'd have a point[0] if you dumped the listing of prime numbers from the program, which isn't static...

[0]: Please stop twisting words, nobody will ever claim that a list of numbers is a document. It is just a list of numbers.

I think this is getting boring, although some interesting point have been made in the past days. Actually, you agreed to disagree a few days ago, why don't we just stick to that and let this thread rest in peace?

Cause we are hard headed hackers who do not know don't know what `give up' means. Agreeing to disagree doesn't mean that we should stop trying to convince each other.

Same about debian and non-free: everyone can demonstrate anything in good faith, but it's still an opinion. You can say that debian is non-free, but don't pretend to convince the others (and the same applies to the other side, as you and those sharing your opinion can't be convinced).

Debian is cleary non-free, there is nothing to dispute it. It isn't even based on a opinion. It is simple to prove: Does the Debian project distribute non-free programs? Of course it does, see the non-free software section on their FTP site.

What about starting looking beyond these defects and go to the substance ?

If the defect is so grave as in this case, it is hard to look at the substance.

So what do you call a spreadsheet with macros ? Is it a document? Is it a program ?

It is a spreadsheet. Is a poem a document?

To me what differentiate a program from a document is that a program can handle inputs, while, generally, documents should not.

Isn't that what I said initaially? Documents are static, programs are not... I don't see how this differs from `handle inputs' to `not handle inputs'.

Said that I know there a re documents that can change and take inputs, so it really does not make any sense to draw a clear line, the line moves on a case per case base.

I don't think anyone wants to draw a `clear' line. I could probobly if I tried hard enough to find things which a kinda programs, and kinda art.

Debian is cleary non-free, there is nothing to dispute it. It isn't even based on a opinion. It is simple to prove: Does the Debian project distribute non-free programs? Of course it does, see the non-free software section on their FTP site.

I think this discussion is meaningless here.

I don't, many Debian developers try and confuse users, we should do our out most to unconfuse them.

Cheers.

I think you are trying to put documentation and programs into one box.

No, I'm telling that you cannot put programs and documentation shipped electronical in different boxes.

If they are different, then they should be in different boxes. Maybe you are speaking about physical boxes?

One should always examine what kind of work one is handling before licensing it. Sometimes it makes sense to use the modifed-BSD license, sometimes the Lesser GPL, sometimes the GPL. Same applies for `text', some `text' is better to be under the GPL, some is better to be under the GFDL.

The problem with your analogy is, that BSD, LGPL and GPL are all free, they only differ in how they protect against non-free stuff. The GFDL is different, in that if applied to programs it is simply non-free. It can be better for you to license something non-free, but I do not want to use it or recommend its usage.

Documentation and software are clearly different, different rules apply. Licensing a document under the GFDL does not make it non-free, it makes it `non-free software', but then, it isn't software at all so calling it `free software' is equally (in)correct.

...

Well, the need for freedoms for program source code is not clear either. Many people distpute that.

How are the freedoms for program source code not clear? I should be able to control what my machine does, what it does, and tell people what it did.

And change what it does and distribute it to others. But there are people telling me that is not needed for programs, and there are people like you telling me it is not needed for documention.

Can you explain to me why you require the right to modify what I have written at all times? Compared to why you need the right to modify a program I have written at all times?

...

The free software licenses do. The FDL does not allow modification in reasonable ways. (plus has some glitches with copying).

How doesn't it allow for it in a reasonable way? Last time I checked, I could modify a document in anyway I choose.

Now, let's take some example. Let's take the documentation of some protocol, assume it is only available as FDL. I want to write a protocoll sniffer for that protocol, so I take the tables for the different events and their structure from the documentation, use some editor macros and some hand-editing to make it a program source for a package printer. Thus I get source code for a program which I have only available as FDL. (And FDL for source is unsuitable, as for example I'll have problems getting it into some embedded chip with the whole license and perhaps some additional licenses in it).

So don't license the data structures, examples, etc, under the GFDL. Pick the proper license for the different works you use. No single license will work for everything.

A documentation unrelated to a program is useless. If it is related it should not be separated.

But they _are_ seperate, documents aren't programs. You can still distribute them in the same physical box if you wish, nobody stops you from doing this.

It's reasonable to expect stuff will move the one way or the other. A good small definition or description from the comments of a program is often a nice sentence in the documentation. A good short description from the documentation can sometimes be added as commentary in the program. Documentation source might include machine readable stuff to be transformed by some scripts or even human to code parts. Programs might get tooltips built in containing stuff from the documentation. Some part of documentation could be rewritten using an auto-generated stuff or docstrings or something like this from the code. There is exchange between them, and incompatible licenses make this impossible. Thus a license for documentation needs to be includeable in some free software license to be free.

Yes, and the GFDL allows for this. Nobody stops you from licensing your examples under the GPL and the rest of the document under the GPL, likewise with the code to be licensed under the GPL. The GNU C Library manual does this for example.

How can more freedom to change what I wrote be good? Would you be ok if you for example wrote "I Bernhard R. Link like dragons", and then someone comes and changes this (the text is licensed under the GPL or similar) to "I Bernhard R. Link hate freedom"? I don't think anyone has such a right.

There are laws against slander and other things like that coping with your example. But also for manifestos and personal opinions freedom is a useful thing. Other people might want to write manifestos too, and might want to express their opinion. Having to formulate them all from scratch is quite some work, and allowing people to save time is in general good. (Of course sometimes you like not to be good to persons you do not like, or that want to harm you. I do not want to say that such things should be free, only that it is nicer if they are.)

There is no law in the world that will protect you from slander if you explicitly allow for the right to modify a work. You cannot sue a person for using a free software program in a manner that you consider bad since you explicitly gave this right. Same applies if you give the explict right to modify a text in anyway or form.

Anything that is of a digital nature is sensible to include in an OS. This does not mean that you, or anyone, should have the right to change for example the GNU manifest to state something entierly different, while still making it sound as if it is the GNU project who wrote it.

Again, writing something making it soundas if someone else wrote it is libel or slander or any other such term layers might use and totaly unrelated to copyright.

Plain wrong if the license explicitly allows for such modifications.

I find it quite easy: Computer runs program, human reads text. I would like to see a single human who can actually run a program of sufficent size.

But humans read computer programs. (And with free software that is an important part of programs). And documentation is first read by computers, too.

It isn't read by a computer. It is read by a parser which is read by a computer. By your logic, since this text is `read' by emacs, which inturn is a program, you should have the explicit right to change what I wrote to something I simply disagree strongly with and claim that I actually wrote it.

Cheers.

I'm sorry to contradict you, but this is completely wrong:

No, it isn't wrong at all.

There is no law in the world that will protect you from slander if you explicitly allow for the right to modify a work. You cannot sue a person for using a free software program in a manner that you consider bad since you explicitly gave this right. Same applies if you give the explict right to modify a text in anyway or form.

Copyright law (and licenses) are concerned with copying. They don't make void other laws. Who sells knives doesn't limit your use, but cutting throats is illegal nonetheless.

Comparing murder to modification of a text is a bit extreme specially when they have nothing in common.

The license you license software under, e.g. GPL, explicitly allows modification of the work. You cannot, ever, claim that it is wrong for a person to use the program in a manner that you find ethically wrong (porting it to a non-free platform for example). The same applies to a work where you give _explicit_ permission to modify the text.

You are confusing a already written work, and a work that doesn't yet exist where one invents something from scratch. The later is infact protected by libel, slander, and other such laws. The former is not.

Cheers.

You are confusing a already written work, and a work that doesn't yet exist where one invents something from scratch. The later is infact protected by libel, slander, and other such laws. The former is not.

Yet another unfounded claim. Can you back it up with some arguments or references? Otherwise you're just wasting our time.

Clearly, if you consider it false, it is your job to back it up. Not mine.

The only person wasting anyones time is you. If you are to lazy to look it up in a legal codex, please refrain from participating in this discussion. What I have written is clearly stated in several legal codexes around the world, including the license of which a work is licensed under. That you are to lazy to be bothered to read any of this, and resort to inflammatory remarks is simply sad. This isn't the first time you resort to this, please stop.

The only person who needs to back up anything right now is you, you have failed to do so. If you are to lazy to read law texts, the license text, and what not, please refrain from participating in any discussion that requires knowledge.

It is you who are claiming that my reasoning/claims/opionons are false, the burden of proof is on you. I have already given you places to look at, that you simply are to lazy to do this is not my problem.

So, who's making inflammatory remarks?

You obviously have no clue what `inflammatory' means. As is also shown clearly by what you consider as a `personal offence'.

Gareth Bowker wrote:

Let's try an example back in the context of software.

Let's say I write a shoot-em-up game, where you're shooting aliens (similar to, say, Doom). I release that under GPL.

Now, someone else comes along and changes the game (which they're perfectly entitled to do under GPL, obviously). Instead of shooting at aliens, you're now shooting Shia Muslims, as an example.

Under UK law, that would be incitement to religious hatred, and illegal. Using your logic, because I allowed anyone to modify my work, I can be sued. This is clearly ridiculous.

Under his logic, that someone else would even be allowed to claim that you wrote the program shooting Shia Muslims.

In the context of books/documentation released under GFDL, simply because I allow you to modify a work I publish under GFDL, it doesn't mean that future changes to the book are my responsibility. If someone changes what I originally wrote to now be libellous, that doesn't mean that I can be sued for it. Such a situation is absurd, yet that's how I interpret what you've stated. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but that's what:

...

There is no law in the world that will protect you from slander if you explicitly allow for the right to modify a work.

seems to say to me.

Exactly, that's absurd. And if it were true, the FDL would protect against it only WRT the invariant sections. I.e., someone else could still include libel in the non-invariant sections and pretend it was yours.

IANAL. Frank

Let's say I write a shoot-em-up game, where you're shooting aliens (similar to, say, Doom). I release that under GPL.

Now, someone else comes along and changes the game (which they're perfectly entitled to do under GPL, obviously). Instead of shooting at aliens, you're now shooting Shia Muslims, as an example.

They had to add new material to do this, i.e. change the pictures of the monsters into Shia Muslims. So it isn't as simple as `modification'.

Under UK law, that would be incitement to religious hatred, and illegal. Using your logic, because I allowed anyone to modify my work, I can be sued. This is clearly ridiculous.

But this wasn't an clear modification, it was the addition of new material too.

Also, this is something a bit different then just "changing" what a person thinks. It isn't even close to changing the sentence `The Shia Muslims are people' into `The Shia Muslims are FOO'.

PS. Slander is verbal attack on a person, Libel is a written attack. Given that we're talking about GFDL works, I assume you meant libel previously?

Yeah, thanks. The written word vs. the spoken one often get mixed up in electronic discussions for some odd reason.

Cheers.

* Alfred M. Szmidt ams@gnu.org [060215 20:41]:

...

...

Nor is FDL-licensed documentation removed, it is _moved_ to the non-free section. Which is part of Debian, desite whatever claims people will make.

Well, here we come back to names and definitions. [...]

[...] Debian GNU/Linux (main) is 100% free software, yes. But Debian as a whole is not, and not even Debian GNU/Linux as a whole. Since non-free is part of the Debian project.

As I said, here we come to the area of definitions. If you want to make your own, that's your right. But please do not contradict people in a way like their definition is wrong and your non-standard definition is the only way to truth.

...

But Debian does not promise those will be free, but that it will create a 100% free operating system, which it really tries.

I'd like to know what `free' means in your vocubalary. You have switched between `free software' and `free', it seems to me that they are the say for you.

With free in this context I mean the (of course somewhat fuzzy) meaning of "free in the sense of free software".

...

There is no pressure to knowlingly include or keep non-free stuff, so people do not easily get caught, finding themselves depending on stuff they do not have allowance to use the way they want. (Didn't that ututo-e distributed by ftp.gnu.org not contain some non-free graphic card drivers some time ago?)

I think you really should stop trying get on the moral high ground, Debian has consitently distributed non-free software since I started using it which was in the `bo' era.

Sorry, free software is for me to a large extend a question of morale. So morale is for me a important part of the question. I'm not into stigmatize the world into good and bad, but to make it as good as possible.

That you then try to accuse someone for a something which is a simple error, or misjudgment, is simply saddening.

Good to hear that this was done by mistake. I didn't want to make accusions, but show how hard it is to get something pure if you just ignore everything inpure.

We all make them, Debian on the other hand _explicitly_ allows non-free software in its distribution (that you, and other Debian developer, simply try to redefine what constitues the system just to justify the inclusion of non-free software is far worse than by error including non-free software).

Debian ships an operating system, which is supposed to be 100% free, and does so quite good, with of course the obvious errors and problems, like sometime slipping some non-free program here or there, or like in the current case some large amount of non-free documentation). It also distributes some additions to this Debian Distribution.

Those additions are clearly seperated, so noone is lured into using it. You either have to actually download files from a "non-free" in its name or modify some file manually to also look for "non-free" software. There is no need to play funny DNS names.

If you think it is bad to aim at a 100% free operating system (and reaching it quite well) and offering additional support so that even people not able to live in a purist world can have to advantages of free-software, I can do nothing against that. I can only repeat that my priorities are to help people, especialy by enabling them to use free software.

Bernhard R. Link

Alfred M. Szmidt wrote [pasted together from 3 mails, to avoid sending too many posts]:

As I said, here we come to the area of definitions. If you want to make your own, that's your right. But please do not contradict people in a way like their definition is wrong and your non-standard definition is the only way to truth.

The only part that is inventing definitions is the Debian project and its developers.

Are you joking? Many people and groups invent definitions. E.g., the FSF invented the definition Free Software (which is a good thing, of course). You're actually refusing the FSF credit for their work just to play your tiny word games, sad.

If you make me depend on this message, I want those rights. People differ on what needs to be free, and I can accept different opinions. But if functional works are restricted, that might be legal, but I'll still call it immoral.

I think we agree here, I think. But documentation isn't functional.

We've been through that already. It has been pointed out to you that even the FDL speaks of a "functional work" [which can contain non-functional parts, like an dedication, as you added, but this doesn't change the fact that the main part of the documentation is functional, and of course, the main part can be all of it if there are no invariant sections or cover-texts, so even a weaker version of your statement, "no documentation is 100% functional", turns out false].

How can more freedom to change what I wrote be good? Would you be ok if you for example wrote "I Bernhard R. Link like dragons", and then someone comes and changes this (the text is licensed under the GPL or similar) to "I Bernhard R. Link hate freedom"? I don't think anyone has such a right.

We've been through that already. It has been pointed out to you that these things are not covered by licenses. (Otherwise, someone could do the same with some GPL software you wrote -- leave in your copyright, and make the program output his rants.) These things are covered by "droit d'auteur", diffamation etc., look in the archives.

Don't you understand the difference between a) modifying a text (and stating that you did so, as required by GPL 2a), and b) claiming that the original author wrote what you did?

Anything that is of a digital nature is sensible to include in an OS. This does not mean that you, or anyone, should have the right to change for example the GNU manifest to state something entierly different, while still making it sound as if it is the GNU project who wrote it.

Again, the latter is not something a license should or can effectively prevent, see above.

Debian is cleary non-free, there is nothing to dispute it. It isn't even based on a opinion. It is simple to prove: Does the Debian project distribute non-free programs? Of course it does, see the non-free software section on their FTP site.

By the same argument one can say: The FSF is cleary non-free, there is nothing to dispute it. It isn't even based on a opinion. It is simple to prove: Does the FSF distribute non-free texts? Of course it does, see the "verbatim copying" texts on their WWW site (which are non-free according to any of our different definitions). -- It's obvious that what you dislike about Debian is that they label the FDL non-free. You can disagree with that policy, and you can point it out. But instead, you keep making overly broad accusations (against participants of this discussion as well as against Debian) which make your arguments look silly.

Really, you might have some valid points. But as long as you keep repeating your statements, including those that have been proven wrong, of which I cited some examples above, you're not giving your other statements much credibility. I suppose few readers would like to keep a list about which statements of yours have already been refuted, and which might be worth considering.

Frank

"Alfred M. Szmidt" ams@gnu.org

The Debian project clearly is inventing what is `free' by extrapolating the rights for `Free Software' to all branches of digital content.

As I'm sure I've written before, Debian does not do that. It only has one way of allowing things in the distribution at the moment, by deciding whether software is free software at the moment, so that is applied to everything. It's the only way to get consensus to include something. That non-discrimination of content type fits in with some of Eben Moglen's writing AFAICT.

Some DDs and users are a bit casual with the wording and write "free" instead of "free software", "follows the DFSG" or "is acceptable in main" because there's only one way in today.

This is absurd by all logical means, and it can be summed up by `nobody should have the right to modify what I think'.

Much as we're trying to explain the many and varied problems with the FDL, I think you've demonstrated how impossible it is to modify what you think!

[...]

I cannot run the Emacs manual and get an output. Clearly, the Emacs manual isn't a functional work in the same sense a program is.

Again, some disagree and think you can run a playbook or workbook on a human or group and produce a result. It's not good to call everyone who simply disagrees with you a liar.

Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:

I wouldn't call troff/latex files for `program source. They all spit out a static file, one could compare it to a file with values in it, that you give to a program, which then spits out a fractal image. Is the file with the values, just numbers, source code? Or even a program? Of course not.

It's not obvious at all. If the program that you give the file to is an interpreter (compiler / byte code machine / emulator), and the values are source code in the interpreted language (source code in the compiled language or intermediate code produced by a previous compilation step / byte code / machine code of the emulated machine), if necessary encoded in some numeric form (just to satisfy your "just numbers" condition, which is rather meaningless as everything on a digital computer can be written as numbers), then yes, the file is a program. -- To most of us, who include source code in the definition of programs, in all of the cases, and to you who only seem consider machine code as programs, at least in the case of an emulated machine. Or do you claim that whether the content of a file *is* a program depends on whether it's being run on a native machine or on an emulator? (If so, what is it while it's not being run?)

A LaTeX/groff file is more akin to a very long parameter list (this is stretching it a bit, but that is what it kinda is)

I don't know groff very well, but for (La)TeX this isn't true. (La)TeX provides a Turing-complete language, so (La)TeX files can be programs. Probably the majority of existing (La)TeX files are not "really" programs (or rather, trivial programs, comparable to a C program consisting only of a series of printf's) if you don't count the included packages, but it's certainly possible to write programs in (La)TeX. The same holds for PostScript, unlike PDF, BTW.

A rather easy way to find out (for practical purposes -- the formal definition can be found in the literature) is to ask the question whether you can, e.g., compute digits of pi or some well-known fractal in a language, *without* writing down the result. (An indication is, if you keep increasing the number of digits or the resolution of the fractal, does the "program" size grow or remain the same.) E.g., in non-programmable languages such as HTML (without JavaScript or other extensions) the only ways to "display" a fractal are things like including it as an external image, or ASCII art, or use of tables -- all of which have to grow to display larger versions.

In contrast, in (La)TeX and PostScript you can implement the fractal algorithms, so you can output the fractal at higher resolutions by just changing a parameter. (FWIW, I programmed some fractals in PS myself. The PS files are very small -- below 1 KB for several fractals, independent of output resolution. When I converted them to PDF for fun, the PDF size exploded as I increased resolution -- quickly approaching 100 MB before I stopped. That's because PDF is basically PS minus the programming language -- the primitives (graphics etc.) are mostly the same, so the difference is quite clearly shown in this comparison.)

Simo wrote:

To me what differentiate a program from a document is that a program can handle inputs, while, generally, documents should not.

I don't think this distinction is very useful. On the one hand, as you say:

Said that I know there a re documents that can change and take inputs, so it really does not make any sense to draw a clear line, the line moves on a case per case base.

(Even serial letters take inputs.)

On the other hand, programs do not have to take inputs. Though you could say that a program without input always gives the same result (if you exclude randomness, by defining it as some kind of input, which seems reasonable), I don't agree to equating a program with its output.

As an example, consider a program that repeatedly inputs a natural number n and outputs the n'th digit of pi. It takes input, so it would be a program, according to that definition. Now if you replace the input statement by a statement counting up n, so the program outputs all digits of pi in succession (until aborted), it wouldn't be a program anymore -- though the actual code is the same, except for a trivial modification!?

Or even more extreme, what about an automated test suite (say for a compiler, so the individual tests are written in the compiler's source language, and there is some kind of test framework). As it takes no input (given a fixed compiler version), and always outputs "OK", neither part of it would be a program according to that definition. No, I don't think that's a useful definition. The established definitions in CS of computability, Turing completeness etc. seem more useful.

Though actually this all misses the point. When someone claims that programs and non-programs need different kinds of freedoms, then it's up to him to support this claim. From such an argument it could be seen show which properties of programs are actually relevant to the argument. Up to now, we've only seen that "it's functional" is not the relevant property (as documentation is functional, even according to the FDL), so the rest seems to be pointless arguing about irrelevant definitions so far.

Frank

On Sun, 2006-02-12 at 09:47 +1100, Ben Finney wrote:

On 11-Feb-2006, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:

...

Some FAQs are software (some are even kept as programs, either in general-purpose languages or specialised ones like latex or PostScript.)

FAQ's are not software, a computer cannot run a FAQ.

A computer can run a PostScript or LaTeX program; indeed, most of them are practically unreadable by a human until a computer has done so.

A FAQ document or manual is often a PostScript or LaTeX program.

Are these programs not software?

Are these programs not FAQ documents or manuals?

Some manuals are programs. Some are not. Neither case is uncommon or strange.

I think you blur the difference too much for convenience. Everything can be converted into a set of instructions, does this mean that everything is a program ?

I think that in the case of a Postscript, LaTeX or anything else, we have that the document is a product of a program, not the program itself. If you run the postscript program and print the result on paper, is that not the document anymore? Of course it is, and printed paper is not a program.

I think that stretching the concept of software or program to this degree is just a metter of convenience, and does nothing to clarify the discussion. It seem, honestly, just specious.

Simo.

On Sun, 2006-02-12 at 01:16 +0000, MJ Ray wrote:

simo simo.sorce@xsec.it

...

Everything can be converted into a set of instructions, does this mean that everything is a program ?

No. "can be" suggests a possibility. "is" would indicate a certainty. Arguing against the certainty does not argue against the possibility. I do not claim that documentation is software, but that documentation can be software.

Well I do not understand how that can happen, probably because I have a stricter idea of what software is.

Everything can be put into words, does this mean everything is an essay?

Sorry I do not actually see the analogy.

(Actually, I'm not sure about any of those "everything" claims.)

...

[...] If you run the postscript program and print the result on paper, is that not the document anymore? Of course it is, and printed paper is not a program.

Listings magazines and machine-readable strips seemed popular types of printed paper programs in my youth. Printed paper is not necessarily a program, but printed paper can be a program. I hope this is clear.

I'm sorry, it is not clear to me. I can't see how printed paper can be a program, unless you mean that printed paper is the media from which the computer reads the instructions, but I think it is so a corner case I tend to exclude it. You may have a program written on paper, but I do not think a book (a human readable book, and by human I mean any human that can read not just programmers) can be ever a program (with program being a set of strict instructions run by a computer).

Simo.

Some FAQs are software (some are even kept as programs, either in general-purpose languages or specialised ones like latex or PostScript.)

FAQ's are not software, a computer cannot run a FAQ.

A computer can run a PostScript or LaTeX program; indeed, most of them are practically unreadable by a human until a computer has done so.

But a computer cannot run the output that those generate (ps and latex should really be classifed as source code by the way, not as programs; a program, in the most strict sense is a set of instructions located in memory that is being executed, there are other definitions of what a program really is, but that is the one that is the most common) . If it could, then they would be programs indeed.

Are these programs not software?

Software and programs tend to be the same thing. It would be better if we agreed on the definition for both. Some people have been known to define anything on a disk platter as software, some have not.

Are these programs not FAQ documents or manuals?

Since a computer cannot read them, they are not programs.

Some manuals are programs. Some are not. Neither case is uncommon or strange.

No manual is a program. Can you show me a single one that I can actually run by a computer? Or even a FAQ?

Cheers.

To be clear, are you saying that source code is *not* a program?

Yes.

You have defined software as synonymous with programs, as I understand it. If source code is not a program, is it not software?

If the preferred form for modification of a manual is not human-readable, and is not a program, what is it? Software? A manual? Something else -- if so, what?

Good questions. I would say `data'. As for the defintiion of software, and program, you put me into a corner there. I, as most people, use the terms to mean many things, none of which are specific.

I think that anything that can be converted into a program is software (i.e. something that is a digital `circuit' or can be converted into such a form, but not made in hardware).

Are these [PostScript and LaTeX] programs not software?

Software and programs tend to be the same thing.

I'll take that as an answer of "all PostScript and LaTeX programs are software"; if you don't believe that's true, I'd still like to know your answer to that question.

Yes, that would be the answer.

How does this affect your definition of software? Is that definition inclusive of something other than programs -- if so, what does it include?

I don't think it affects it at all.

Are these programs not FAQ documents or manuals?

Since a computer cannot read them, they are not programs.

I presume you mean to distinguish the human-readable form from the preferred form for modification (the source code) for the manual. Why is one form "the manual" and the other not?

The human readable form can infact be the preferred form for modifications (text files anyone?) The manual would be what the user reads and sees. In the same way that the program is what the user interacts with. Compare this to the source code (either for the manual, or the program) which a computer cannot grok without some kind of transformation.

Is this distinction of forms of a work significant for the freedoms that should accrue to each form of the work?

I think so.

Some manuals are programs. Some are not. Neither case is uncommon or strange.

No manual is a program. Can you show me a single one that I can actually run by a computer? Or even a FAQ?

I define a program as being inclusive of the source code and the executable form. Sometimes they are the same form.

I define a document as being inclusive of the source code and human-readable form. Sometimes they are the same form.

This doesn't answer the question, can a FAQ be a program?

I ask all these questions of category definitions, because it is on the categorical labelling of different types of work, and different forms of work, that you base your arguments for what freedoms should apply to different things. Thus, understanding the definitions is crucial to understanding your arguments.

Well put.

Cheers, and happy hacking!

A license like the GPL grants freedom to perform acts on something. Given your definitions so far, what category of thing do you believe a license like the GPL applies to? Software? Programs? Data? Manuals? Some combination? Some other set? Please inform us, so we know what you're saying.

Software; which is a combination of program and source code.

Does your defintion of "the program" include both source code and executable forms, if the two happen to be separate?

No.

Since this is getting hairy, I snipped large parts of your message, and will answer it in one go instead (it was all about what my definition of software, and program is).

Program ::= binary data that can be executed by a computer.

Source code ::= Something that can be converted to binary data that can be executed by a computer (either in one, or several steps)

Software ::= Any of these two.

Data ::= Manuals, music, ...

That is what I have used for many years anyway.

On Tue, 2006-02-14 at 11:51 +0000, MJ Ray wrote:

Well, that looks to me like programs for some analogue computers would not be programs and some hardware would be software and many other fun consequences. I'm sure it'd not be too long before other absurdities could be revealed.

Completely as an aside, I'm interested to know why you think those are absurdities.

I don't see why it's not possible for something to be both hardware and software, in the same way you could call a postscript file both documentation and program.

I can even think of a few examples - eeproms, fpgas, etc. - where a representation of some software is actually a physical configuration of a piece of silicon.

I don't think it's possible to classify any given 'thing', be it object or file or whatever, into 'hardware', 'program', etc. - but only because I don't think they're mutually exclusive.

Cheers,

Alex.

On Wed, 2006-02-15 at 12:20 +0000, MJ Ray wrote:

Defining a program as not a program seems absurd and the other one is just fun because of the types of hardware it allows to be called software.

So is it the types of hardware that could also be software, or is hardware != software axiomatic for you?

I'm not sure defining a program as not a program is necessarily absurd; I can think of "programs" for digital computers that I would label as a "program" (e.g., doing multiplication on an abacus), so I wouldn't be surprised if it were true also for analogue computers.

Cheers,

Alex.

"Alfred M. Szmidt" ams@gnu.org

...

Program ::= binary data that can be executed by a computer.

Source code ::= Something that can be converted to binary data that can be executed by a computer (either in one, or several steps)

Software ::= Any of these two.

[...]

Have you actually programmed an analogue computer? You are changing the _hardware_ to make it do things, not software. Please, if you are not interested in continuing this disucssion, stop sending stupid remarks like these.

The consequences seem stupid because those definitions are inconsistent with reality. It was your definition of programs as a subset of software which led to that contradiction. I don't hold much hope of reasonable discussion with you, but highlighting your absurdity is worthwhile.

"Alfred M. Szmidt" ams@gnu.org

A program is binary data that is executed by a computer. An analogue computer does not have binary data. Software is anything that can be converted into a a program.

Ergo, truth of those definitions would mean that analogue computers have no programs, which is absurd, so they are clearly false.

Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:

Programming an analogue computer is like programming a digital computer by using TTL circutes. There is nothing `soft' about it. So unless you are going to state that a bunch of TTL chips connected in some form to make LEDs flash is a `program', and by direct consequene claim that hardware are programs, I suggest that you refrain from writting anymore about this topic that you obviously have no clue about, but if you'd like to learn more, feel free to send me a email.

push tangent

On a tangent, does that mean the audio track on cine film is software for an analogue computer? Or at least has a similar form.

I'm reminded of an old television effects system that worked by analogue processing of the CRT deflection coils, and had another camera taking the new (carefully distorted image) from the CRT.

It could do various sweeps, page-turn effects and other fantastic stuff.

I guess it _could_ have had software on tape to control some operations, but perhaps that would count as parameters to the hard wired analogue computer controlling the coils.

I'm just trying to think what form analogue computer software would take, I think I'm getting stuck because I'm not aware of any analogue computers that have a clearly defined execution and control unit to act on any "program input" (for obvious reasons!)

So I guess that tape input to the crt controller might count as software....

pop tangent

"Alfred M. Szmidt" ams@gnu.org

Since you obviously have never actually "written" a program for an analogue computer, you might want to try doing that before you start stating silly things like this.

Do not lie about me.

Programming an analogue computer is like programming a digital computer by using TTL circutes. [...]

No, it's really not. It's closer to programming by wiring a breadboard, if you've ever done that.

By the way, those definitions also denied the name of programs for non-binary digital computers.

"Alfred M. Szmidt" ams@gnu.org

You have not programmed an analogue computer. Your statements show this. If you claim that you have, then you are a categorical liar.

The above shows how fallible you are and how unsafe your logic is.

[...] Learn some math.

This suggests that you're a comedian too.

simo simo.sorce@xsec.it

On Sat, 2006-02-11 at 13:10 +0000, MJ Ray wrote:

...

As an example, I suggest all FDL manuals, none of which are free software, whether programs or otherwise.

Do I understand it correctly that you view any digital authorship work as software ?

Not quite.

Is it correct to say you consider even physical books as software ?

Probably not, but things like machine-readable printing and single-purpose ebook devices are blurring the difference, which makes that a difficult question to answer in abstract.

If not, where's the differentiating point ?

I'd probably describe software as something like routines, compilers, and other non-hardware aspects of the computer. [after John W Tukey, January 1958, American Mathematical Monthly]

Differentiating software and hardware is not always possible: hence, /firmware/ covers one grey area. Intuitively, I'd suggest software can't be disrupted by touch, but I've not considered that idea long and I don't think physicists have a totally solid definition of /touch/ anyway, so it probably just moves the question.

I think part of the reason why no-one has proposed a welcome social contract amendment to allow less freedom for documentation is that the copyrightable expression of documentation can be software, even though documentation is not always software.

Hope that helps explain,

"Alfred M. Szmidt" ams@gnu.org

You are starting a snowball effect without knowing the story.

No, I only describe what's happened, to the last place I read good news about the FDL problems.

First of all, did it occur to you maybe that someone simply made a simple mistake?

Yes, and if that's the case, I'd hope someone would set me straight swiftly. Do you have any evidence that the recent changes to http://savannah.gnu.org/faq/?group_id=5802&question=Project_-_How_to_get... and this rejection are all mistakes of one person? I can't see how to get the editor details of the FAQ, but presumably all the Savannah team get to see the change when it happens.

You claim that there seems to be a change of policy, please back that up.

There are Savannah-hosted projects (including GNU software) which use GPL for documentation. I hope that you can understand why I'm not going to name them today: it is painful to transfer hosting away from Savannah (export is still incomplete).

Sebastian Wieseler seems the keenest promoter of FDL among the project reviewers, but can you see for yourself in the tracker that his messages about it have recently changed from a suggestion to an instruction. If it really is all his doing, hopefully other savannah-hackers will speak out and rethink how much unreviewed action one person can take.

Bluely,

"Alfred M. Szmidt" ams@gnu.org

...

http://savannah.gnu.org/faq/?group_id=5802&question=Project_-_How_to_get...

Have you actually read that? There are no requirements that documentation must be licensed under the GFDL.

"For documentation, we are currently clarifying exactly what licenses we accept" and the recent edits to that FAQ are evidence that it is changing, which is what you asked for (although you cut your "please back that up" demand).

The driconf exchange was the evidence that it is now required that documentation must be licensed under the FDL. (Please don't use GFDL: you don't write GGPL.)

...

Sebastian Wieseler seems the keenest [...]

Now you are trying to blame this on one person, [...]

No, you asked whether I'd considered that it could be someone's mistake. I don't believe it was, but that's who's it could be.

Stop flaming me for answering your questions!

Sebastian is a nice person, [...]

I don't know him, but I expect he does a lot of good things and I don't dispute your claim he's "a nice person". This is not a personal attack on him, but contesting his actions: rejecting GPL'd projects from Savannah seems wrong.

Instead of making baseless accusations, how about going directly to the source and see what actually happened in a _poilite_ fashion?

Sadly, this isn't baseless: Savannah rejected a project because it used the GPL, rather than a GPL-incompatible licence.

Sure, seeking advice in public before painting a huge f-off target on my back is so impolite(!) Glad you finally offered some instead of making baseless dismissals and non-attributions.

"Alfred M. Szmidt" ams@gnu.org

...

Sadly, this isn't baseless: Savannah rejected a project because it used the GPL, rather than a GPL-incompatible licence.

It is baseless, you have no clue about why it was rejected other than a couple of messages. Please, once again, stop making these baseless accusations.

It's not baseless. Those messages and the deleted blog are the base. The base isn't as large as it could be, but the base is:

"On the other hand the official statement of Savannah is still: If you don't like the GNU FDL and would like to follow Debian's point of view, hey, do so, we don't care.

"At least you should use the GNU FDL for your documentation, and if you would like then use the GNU GPL, too. This is what is meant by "dual-licensing" - and this is what we accept in our policy, too.

"So if you would like release your documentation under the GNU FDL and GNU GPL. (but only GNU GPL is what we don't allow)."

If you believe that isn't base, then you'd probably believe that black is white and I'd look forward to your next zebra crossing!

Please stop making baseless refutations and either go back to suggesting actions or stop posting.

Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:

I think this is a bad week.

You are starting a snowball effect without knowing the story. First of all, did it occur to you maybe that someone simply made a simple mistake?

So, was this a mistake? And if so, has it be corrected?

Regards,

Joey

"Alfred M. Szmidt" ams@gnu.org

joey@infodrom.de

...

So, was this a mistake? And if so, has it be corrected?

May this be a lesson to all.

In case anyone missed it, the lesson was: publicise problems. The corrections happened after it was posted to many lists.

Also, it's only a postponement, not a long-term fix. Please help explain to savannah-hackers-public@gnu why requiring a known-buggy GPL-incompatible licence is a bad idea.

Thanks,

On Mon, Feb 20, 2006 at 01:52:37PM +0100, Jeroen Dekkers wrote:

At Mon, 20 Feb 2006 12:09:48 +0000, MJ Ray wrote:

...

Also, it's only a postponement, not a long-term fix. Please help explain to savannah-hackers-public@gnu why requiring a known-buggy GPL-incompatible licence is a bad idea.

Requiring a certain license is just a stupid thing to begin with. The requirement should be that it's free (or you can add the extra requirement that it should be GPL-compatible like gna.org has, that's also useful because you then share all code).

But if somebody wants to release his documentation under the BSD license, I don't see any reason why that should be forbidden by savannah.

It isn't. What they require is that the documentation be released under the GFDL or a compatible license. You can dual (or triple) license it under GFDL|GPL or GFDL|BSD or ...

Requiring a certain license is just a stupid thing to begin with. The requirement should be that it's free (or you can add the extra requirement that it should be GPL-compatible like gna.org has, that's also useful because you then share all code).

The GFDL is a free license, so your comment makes no sense. Savannah only allows for free licenses, a perfectly valid requirement.

But if somebody wants to release his documentation under the BSD license, I don't see any reason why that should be forbidden by savannah.

It isn't forbidden on Savannah, it is explcitly allowed.

Cheers.

You fail to knowledge that GFDL is a free license in your opinion, and also in opinion of others, but there *is* people that does not think the same.

Some people consider the GPL a non-free software license. I fail to see your point. The GPL is a free software license, and the GFDL is a free documentation license (not because it is a documentation license, but because of the rights it gives to users).

Some people consider the GPL a non-free software license. I fail to see your point. The GPL is a free software license, and the GFDL is a free documentation license (not because it is a documentation license, but because of the rights it gives to users).

I do not object that the GFDL is a free _Documentation_ license, but I'd say that unfortunately it is a bad license, it has many problems, and there's no need to conceal them and fight against any criticism like it be a matter of faith.

Please state what these problems are then, I don't think anyone objects to having a discussion about any problems the GFDL has (I even think that it has some problems, but invariant sections are not one of them; the major problem with the GFDL is infact that it is far to long and to complex so one can grasp it correctly).

Nobody is concealing them, or is fighting against any criticism for the GFDL. The problem is that some people simply have the wrong starting point, just like people who consider non-free software something that is morally and ethically correct.

Also, it would be nice if people stopped saying `the GFDL is not a free license', this has absolutley no meaning whatsoever. I too err on this. It leads to a massive confusion over what one is discussing since it implies that there is a specific set of freedoms that apply to _all_ works, a set of freedoms that is always the same no matter what one discusses. It is a clever tactic that is used exessivley by those who try to convince people that the GFDL is suppsoedly a bad license, much like calling treacherous computing for `trusted computing'.

And please stop this flame,

This is just a heated discussion between hard headed hackers. If you consider that a flame, then you are not capable of having any discussion about anything one has a passion for.

Cheers.

"Alfred M. Szmidt" ams@gnu.org

...

The corrections happened after it was posted to many lists.

No, they didn't. The savannah hackers knew about this before it happened, and where working on a fix before it. [...]

Yes, the corrections *happened* after it was posted.

I have no info about whether the savannah hackers were working on a fix before that: can you prove your claim?

[...]

Also, it's only a postponement, not a long-term fix. Please help explain to savannah-hackers-public@gnu why requiring a known-buggy GPL-incompatible licence is a bad idea.

Please spreading these untruths. Nobody is requiring you to license material under the GFDL, you can license it under the BSD and the GFDL if you so wish.

So you're not required to license under FDL, but can license under BSD and FDL if you wish: to me, that looks like requiring FDL to be permitted and so it's not "untruths". You cannot use the GPL, for example.

Nor is the GFDL buggy in any sense that you claim that it is. [...]

Why is a new version planned, then, if it has no bugs?

Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:

...

...

The corrections happened after it was posted to many lists.

No, they didn't. The savannah hackers knew about this before it happened, and where working on a fix before it. [...]

I have no info about whether the savannah hackers were working on a fix before that: can you prove your claim?

Ask the Savannah hackers.

So, did you do that? Remember, you made the claim: "The savannah hackers knew about this", which you need to prove. Which Savannah hacker(s) did you ask, when, and what did they reply?

Frank

Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:

Which Savannah hacker(s) did you ask, when, and what did they reply?

It was in private. Go ask the Savannah hackers.

While it's indeed not ok to quote private mails in public without consent, you're certainly allowed to state whom you asked and when and to describe (in your own words, and in brief) what they said about this point.

Frank

"Alfred M. Szmidt" ams@gnu.org

MJ Ray wrote:

...

Yes, the corrections *happened* after it was posted.

And the corrections didn't happen because of the postings

So you claim. Without proof. Again. (I didn't claim the contrary.)

...

I have no info about whether the savannah hackers were working on a fix before that: can you prove your claim?

Ask the Savannah hackers. The best place to go to the source. Something you simply do not understand.

So no, you can't/won't support your claim. You are simply engaging in wild handwaving for your own personal gratification. Please stop cluttering this list with the resultant spurtings.

...

So you're not required to license under FDL, but can license under BSD and FDL if you wish: to me, that looks like requiring FDL to be permitted and so it's not "untruths". You cannot use the GPL, for example.

The GFDL should obviously be permited, anything else would be quite silly.

It's far from obvious to me why I should allow the BNP or whoever to print updated copies of a manual and forbid recipients from removing their manifesto from it, as FDL use would permit.

And you can use the GPL if you would like to, just like with licensing your work under the GPL. [...]

Can you use the GPL alone? It's my understanding that would be forbidden by the planned policy change.

If the FDL's not buggy, why do you refer to its problems in another email today? (__) (oo) /------/ / | || * /---/\ ~~ ~~ ...."Have you mooed today?"...

I'm sure this thread is killfiled/filtered by most by now, so I'll keep to points of information:

"Alfred M. Szmidt" ams@gnu.org

Did I claim that you did? No. You implied it on the other hand.

I am not to blame for what you read between the lines of my emails.

Only if you stop cluttering the list with abusrd lies.

TTBOMK, I have not lied. Your request is like "do you still deny that you beat children?"

If you wish to know what happened, please ask the Savannah hackers. You have obviously not done so, and instead of doing this, you went on a personal crusade without knowing what actually happened.

I did ask. Of course people are reluctant to admit errors. The usual tactic is to apply pressure while offering a good solution that doesn't make them admit any mistakes. Usually, I care more about the future than the past.

This isn't the first time you do this.

Indeed. Nothing to be ashamed of. My estimates are often good.

...

It's far from obvious to me why I should allow the BNP or whoever to print updated copies of a manual and forbid recipients from removing their manifesto from it, as FDL use would permit.

This is clearly written at http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-doc.html

Not clearly. The justification there is mostly RMS's arbitrary and inconsistent beliefs and that's not enough. I think http://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-gfdl.html is more the reasons, but my work is not for sale to the BNP for that low price.

...

...

And you can use the GPL if you would like to, just like with licensing your work under the GPL. [...]

...

Can you use the GPL alone? It's my understanding that would be forbidden by the planned policy change.

Please ask the Savannah hackers.

I have. You're contradicting them. Why?

...

If the FDL's not buggy, why do you refer to its problems in another email today?

Please stop claiming things I didn't even imply. You have on a repeated basis invented claims. It is silly, please stop it. You were answering to a sentence where I wrote something along the lines of `The GFDL does not have the problems that you claim it to have'. The GFDL does have problems, but none of which you claim it to have.

And you wrote that to object to me calling the FDL a known-buggy licence, so I concluded that you believed it has no known bugs.

TTBOMK, I have not invented claims. Please stop making wild unsubstantiateable allegations all the time.