Re: Start for a discussion about free documentation in Debian.
On Sat, Aug 08, 1998 at 05:46:14PM +0100, Jules Bean wrote:
> On Sat, 8 Aug 1998, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
>
> >
> > b) Non-technical documents.
> > I listed the following:
> >
> > 1. Trademarks, Copyrights
>
> I'm playing devil's advocate here, I admit. But why shouldn't copyright's
> be free? I mean, obviously I can't change the copyright under which you
> place your piece of work. But, if I want to put some unrelated work of
> mine under a copyright, and I choose to invent a new copyright (license)
> of my own, which I derive from the one you use, why should this upset
> you?
The problem is not within the legal text, but in the preamble and the
complete "outfit". Imagine 200 different GPL's exist, all looking very
similar, only one word or to changed or added here and there. This would be
indeed very bad for Debian, has we had to look very carefull if the meaning
has changed and if the license is still compatible. I'll forward a mail by
RMS on this topic on the policy list after I finished this mail. He says
that you can copy the legal text, but the GPL as a whole (with preamble and
so on) is not modificable. I find this reasonable.
> For example, you included in your first email a copyright based on the
> GPL. A derivative work of the GPL, in fact. According to the GPL's
> copyright, you have just broken the law. This strikes me as a little
> odd.
No, I don't think I broke the law. I only copied the legal text, not the
framework (I was careful to do so). I also didn't referred to the fact that
it is derived from the GPL (in the document itself), and this both makes it
identificable (nobody could take it for the GPL).
> > 2. Personal opinions, email quotes
> > 3. essays, graphic novels
> >
> > I think everybody agrees that we don't benefit from changing these, and we
> > shouldn't change them. (As this would probably be a violation of the
> > personality of the author). Are they only acceptable in non-free (as Jules
> > says), or do we allow them in main (Manoj and me)?
> >
>
> Maybe you don't want to change them. But, before agreeing that they are
> OK in main, ask yourself, 'Might I, or might one of our users, want to
> create a derived work?'
This is a very good question, and I'm happy that you remind me of that:
> One of the advantages of main, IMHO, is that I know I can create a dervied
> work from anything therein, without carefully reading the license. I
> would not like to give up that right too easily...
OTOH, my mind tells me that the user would prefer to get the things on the
CD image, even if they are not completely free. But your point is very
valid, and I think we should think hard before putting non-free stuff in
main.
I still think it is warranted for copyright license, emails, trademarks and
a few further exceptions.
If we decide to let non-free stuff in main, a prominent mark has to be used
of course.
> Disclaimer: I don't feel as strongly about this as I perhaps seem to. If
> the body of opinion is against me, I will vote with Marcus and Manoj. But
> I raise these issues for completeness..
I think your arguments are reasonable. I think Manojs arguments are
reasonable, too.
It may well be that this special topic is just a matter of taste. I want to
hear more opinions about it.
Thank you,
Marcus
--
"Rhubarb is no Egyptian god." Debian GNU/Linux finger brinkmd@
Marcus Brinkmann http://www.debian.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: