Re: FDLed manuals

[Nathanael Nerode <neroden at twcny dot rr dot com>]

>In any case, it appears that the FSF and the Debian folks may find
>themselves at an impasse: the FSF wants to be able to spread its 
>message ("propaganda" for those who don't like it) by including it in 
>manuals, 
Say rather, by forcing all creators of derivative manuals to do so.

>and Debian seems to be trying to extend the DFSG to non-software and 
> wants to bar attempts to do this.
Modulo the change in the meaning of "this" given above.

--

The 'Cover Texts' are not a big issue and are arguable.  But Invariant 
Sections make the licence definitively non-free by any reasonable 
standard, because they *can't be removed*.  There is some argument over
whether it's OK to have sections which can't be *modified*; I think it is.
But sections which can't be *removed* present a long-term practical problem
as well as a conceptual problem.

That's the actual issue.  Note that the result of the FSF's 
shortsightedness on the Invariant Sections issue is probably going to 
be *less* distribution of the GNU manuals and therefore *less* distribution 
of 'Funding Free Software' et al.  If it wasn't in an Invariant Section,
it would just be distributed.  RMS has fallen into the closed-source 
mindset trap: the idea that added restrictions in a licence will make it 
more effective; and the habit of addressing problems which don't 
actually exist.  Under the old GNU documentation licence, was there a 
major problem with people ripping out free software evangelism 
sections and their modified copies replacing the standard versions? I've
certainly never heard of such a problem.

The situation is such as to make some of us not want to contribute to 
the manuals.  I, for example, will resist putting any of my work in 
something with an Invariant Section unless its license has an exception
allowing the section to be removed from derivative works.  Or unless the 
FSF decides to pay me to make my work non-free. :-)

--

Incidentally, comments in GPLed code can only be moved to the 
manuals due to the FSF copyright, since it would otherwise violate the 
GPL (by putting extra restrictions on distribution of a derivative 
work).  The stated purpose of the FSF holding copyrights is to give them 
standing to defend the GPL, not to allow them to break it.

So it seems that the moral thing to do is never to move text present in
comments in source files into the manuals (so long as the manuals have 
a GPL-incompatible licence), and I will say so if anyone proposes such 
a patch. :-)

By the way, anyone is authorized to reproduce any of this message in 
any form, and to make any derivative works from it (provided you don't
claim I said something I didn't), and to reproduce those works in any 
form.

--Nathanael