Re: summary of the problem...
On Sat, Apr 17, 1999 at 11:31:20PM +0200, Andrea Fanfani wrote:
> John Hasler:
>
> The _Linux Programmers Guide_ is non-free because its license contains
> this: "If you make money with it the authors want a share."
>
> The LDP license is free except for the prohibition on derivatives. IMHO
> this should be permitted but deprecated, but others do not agree.
>
> The _Linux Kernel_ license is the same as the LDP one.
I consider "free except for the prohibition on derivatives" an oxymoron. The
essential property of DFSG-freeness is the possibility to derive a new work
using all or parts of the original work.
For example, we can't fix spelling errors. We can't convert to different
formats. We can't add Debian specific information. We can't update the
information. It is even questionable if we can distribute it as a Debian
package at all, because the package is probably a derived work (depends on
how the packaging is done exactly).
This is blatantly non-free to me. Other people think different. I have yet
not heard convincing (to me) arguments why the DFSG should be interpreted
essentially different for documentation than for program code. In
particular, I have trouble figuring out where the border line is (is SGML
code not software? Is HTML not software? Is the help text within the source
code a document only?)
Will we have to reopen the discussion about non-program data? I am not sure.
My position is that the DFSG is sufficient in 99% of all cases, and the very
few remaining problems (for example non-free copyright license documents
[like the GPL] can be resolved easily. However, I also know that there is a
large part of us who disagree with me here, and they have some good
arguments, too. Mmmh.
Marcus
--
`Rhubarb is no Egyptian god.' Debian http://www.debian.org finger brinkmd@
Marcus Brinkmann GNU http://www.gnu.org master.debian.org
Marcus.Brinkmann@ruhr-uni-bochum.de for public PGP Key
http://homepage.ruhr-uni-bochum.de/Marcus.Brinkmann/ PGP Key ID 36E7CD09
Reply to: