Re: Start for a discussion about free documentation in Debian.
On Sat, 8 Aug 1998, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> 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.
I had previously read this mail (you must have posted it here or to -devel
before, I recognise it), and I have just re-read it. I still don't quite
see why rms doesn't want the GPL to be free.
I agree with you, that as you describe in the paragraph above, it would be
a Bad Thing (tm) for the GPL to be copied and changed indiscriminately.
However, I would like to see the following clause at the bottom of the
GPL:
You may freely use any part of the GPL, verbatim or with modification, as
a basis for a new work - in particular a new license - ON THE CONDITION
THAT the new work does not in any way attempt to pass itself off as the
GPL, or any version thereof, and that you continue to impose this same
condition on any users of that license.
IMHO, this clause would then make the GPL 'free' without endangering it.
However, RMS has stated that he will not make the GPL free, so I suppose I
have already lost this battle...
>
> > 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).
>
Certainly, you acted as RMS suggested you should. And since he wrote the
GPL, and is a director of the FSF (I think?) which owns the GPL, you are
quite safe. However, the copying restriction on the GPL itself simply
says 'changing it is not allowed'...
> > > 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.
Be careful with the equation main == CD. If that really is your only
worry, we could create a new debian tag called 'debian-art'. Into this we
put magazine articles, graphic novels, and other things which are freely
distributable, but not modifiable. We would then press this as a (very
funky) separate CD, giving all debian users a dash of free culture..
>
> 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.
Absolutely.
Jules
/----------------+-------------------------------+---------------------\
| Jelibean aka | jules@jellybean.co.uk | 6 Evelyn Rd |
| Jules aka | jules@debian.org | Richmond, Surrey |
| Julian Bean | jmlb2@hermes.cam.ac.uk | TW9 2TF *UK* |
+----------------+-------------------------------+---------------------+
| War doesn't demonstrate who's right... just who's left. |
| When privacy is outlawed... only the outlaws have privacy. |
\----------------------------------------------------------------------/
Reply to: