Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I would appreciate if in future you would restrict you comments > to the need for the Invariant sections within the GFDL. > > The issue at hand for Debian is whether to include GFDL-covered > manuals in the Debian GNU/Linux system. I am sticking to that > issue.
Under the current GFDL 1.2, with the anti-DRM clause, there is essentially no chance of that. So the real issue at hand is the future evolution of the GFDL, and whether it can get to a point where the FSF if happy with its purpose and Debian is happy with its methods. And that disconnection between purpose and methods really is what this is about: the FSF is concerned about getting to a state where all computer programs are free, and is willing to restrict freedoms in the interim to get there. Debian is concerned about acting in a free manner itself, ensuring its users have Free Software, and figuring everybody will eventually come along. If offered GFDL'd software which came with an Invariant section on the evils of free software and the virtues of Shared Source, Debian would reject it. It is a violation of Debian's principles to distribute your invariant sections solely because they come from the FSF or because they express opinions we may like. This appears not to be even a practical impediment to political communication. You will observe, for example, that Debian is among the most well-known GNU/Linux distributions, despite having no advertising budget. It is known for quality, for ease of administration, and for freedom -- even though its political documents, such as the Social Contract and DFSG, are under licenses which allow derivative works and freedom of distribution. Debian haven't even had recommendations from you or the FSF to get this far. Given the combination of both this success at distributing political statements as free software -- with all the same freedoms which are attached to Emacs or Linux -- and that the FSF apparently has never tried distributing its political documents in a free way, nobody here is likely to believe you that it will have bad effects. From the experience seen here, no more people will strip your essays than would anyway, in violation of the license. It is understandable that you are afraid to release your essays as free software, because you fear your competitors will take advantage of this: many companies are afraid to release their programs as free software, because they fear their competitors will take advantage. You've succeeded in convincing people to risk Freedom by example and by argument in the past -- why do those examples and arguments not apply to the GFDL? But now I've drifted off topic. As far as the GFDL and the DFSG: it is essentially impossible that Debian will ship anything with an anti-DRM clause akin to the GFDL. If it were phrased inclusively as "You must permit further copying by anyone who can read a copy," that would be fine. The exclusive phrasing currently there, which prohibits any method which inhibits copying, is unacceptably broad and non-free. It is similarly the case that Debian is vanishingly unlikely to distribute invariant political text, excepting only metadata such as the terms and conditions of licenses for Debian's software. To do such would violate Debian's agreement with its users: that they may freely modify any software their receive for their own use. -Brian Additionally, my last several messages to rms or [EMAIL PROTECTED] have been bounced by mx30.gnu.org. Is it not on speaking terms with me, or simply having a bad month?
