Re: Future licence suggestions (was : License problem in Ubuntu Desktop Guide)

[Yavor Doganov <yavor doganov org>]

Joachim Noreiko wrote:
> 
> The list of problems encountered with the GFDL has been on the
> Mallard wiki page for months: http://live.gnome.org/ProjectMallard
> and in our mail archives for even longer.

I doubt that the people from FSF who are responsible for this are
reading random pages from wikis.  Anyway, by reading the "Cons"
section, I can't see a single argument that rules out the present GNU
FDL.  More specifically:

  * Debian: The GNU Project does not have a committment to comply with
    3rd party requirements.  The Debian Project is free to decide
    whatever they like, including twisting the definition of "freedom"
    to something completely perverted.  If you're following the events
    that occur there, you'll notice the extreme hypocrisy by declaring
    GNU manuals "non-free" and at the same time accepting clearly
    non-free firmware.  Judge by yourself which of these is more
    unethical.  There is a possibility to return all GFDL'ed
    manuals with Invariant Sections in "main", but it's irrelevant for
    GNU and GNOME.  Don't make decisions and assumptions  based on
    such "pressure".

  * Effectively requires us to change the title all the time:  This is
    not true and it is even mentioned on the wiki.  Translated
    manuals, which are modified versions, will carry a different
    (translated) title anyway and even if the title coincides with the
    original for some languages, I think that there is no problem if
    the copyright holder gives permission for this.  Many problems (at
    least what you consider "problems") will vanish if there is a sole
    copyright holder for all GNOME documentation and translations,
    such s the FSF.  Software must not have "owners" and this applies
    to documentation as well.  Assigning copyright to the FSF is the
    best thing that a developer/translator/writer may do and this has
    nothing to do with credits.

  * Has revision history requirements that are difficult to satisfy
    for dynamic online documents: These requirements apply to new
    releases only.  Also, one single set of documentation, if packaged
    and released together (f.i. gnome-user-docs tarball) requires only
    one instance of the GFDL to be present and one revision history.
    Many GNU manuals are consisting of more than one file -- for
    example the GNU Emacs manual -- and it's not necessary to add a
    copy of the GFDL and revision history to every file.  Mallard will
    be much more dynamic than Info, but the same rules should apply.

  * Invariant Sections: Off-topic, since the GNOME documentation
    doesn't have any, but people who are arguing against them totally
    misunderstand their purpose, and apply blindly the definition of
    "free software" to documentation, which is inappropriate.

> > Inventing yet another license just because some insignificiant
> > part of the Free Software community hates GFDL doesn't seem like
> > the right approach for me.  RMS has mentioned several times that
> > the GFDL will be revisited once the new GPL/LGPL is out.
> 
> An ETA on that?

I don't have an ETA even for my own tasks, so I can't answer this
question.  But you (or Shaun) may start the discussion now.  Feel free
to CC RMS or Eben Moglen; the GNOME Documentation Project is important
enough for the FSF to deserve their attention.