[gl-como] Stallman licenzia il principale sviluppatore di Hurd...
Sab 22 Nov 2003 01:47:32 CET
> Non vorrei fomentare polemiche, ma Stallman non esagera
Stallman (come da sempre) adotta delle politiche piuttosto
estremiste a cui timane coerente.
Poi si puo discutere sulla bonta' dell' estremismo.
L'articolo è inoltre impreciso e com qualche errore:
"Inoltre, ci sono delle parti considerevoli nei manuali GDFL
che non possono essere rimosse o cambiate e questo crea
problemi a chi vuole utilizzare la documentazione."
Bhe le parti non modificabili sono la nota di licenza della
doc, che non è "parte considerevole", è la stessa politica
Questo è il messaggio originale:
------- Start of forwarded message -------
Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2003 11:33:16 -0800
From: email@example.com (Thomas Bushnell, BSG)
Subject: What's up with the GFDL?
Richard Stallman is pushing an anti-free license for
By that, I mean, a license for documentation which, if it
for software, would unquestionably be understood as unfree.
There are many negative consequences of this action:
1) The Debian Project, which is committed to free software,
distribute GFDL'd manuals as part of the Debian system.
ironic in the extreme, because RMS used to complain that
too loose about distributing non-free things. Now
Debian is too
tight for him.
2) It is not possible to borrow text from a GFDL'd manual and
incorporate it in any free software program whatsoever.
not a mere license incompatibility. It's not just that
the GFDL is
incompatible with this or that free software license:
it's that it
is fundamentally incompatible with *any* free software
whatsoever. So if you write a new program, and you have no
commitments at all about what license you want to use,
that it be a free license, you cannot include GFDL'd text.
3) The FSF solicited public comment on the GFDL, but this
have been a deceptive enterprise. The goal seems to
have been to
garner public support for it, and that simply failed.
So the FSF
does not trumpet that little public comment, and has
explanation of why such a widely unpopular documentation
should be used.
4) RMS has now "dismissed" me as Hurd maintainer because I have
publicly spoken against the GFDL, saying that a GNU
support and speak in favor of GNU policies. If this is
RMS's reason, then it means that he demands the right to
the speech of every GNU volunteer when it comes to GNU
policies. He wants not merely to set the direction, but
require that each and every one of us publicly support a
when asked to.
I do not know what the right response is. I believe perhaps
thing to do is to create structures for GNU project
express their opinions so that we can even find out what the GNU
project thinks. Heretofore, RMS has been an able spokesman,
he disregards the comments of volunteers (even when explicitly
solicited), works against free software, and attempts to
speech of GNU volunteers in talking about such issues,
gone very wrong.
I suspect that nothing will happen, and the sad result will
while free software will continue to thrive, the GNU project
die. I do not know what would prevent that.
The incompatibilities of the GFDL with free software are not
controversial. There are two central problems.
First, GFDL'd manuals can contain "invariant sections" which
changed or removed. This is a restriction on modification
permitted for free software licenses. Moreover, it is not a
restriction or one that imposes minimal costs. Invariant
be very large, and the pieces of a GFDL'd manual that one
copy might be small. (For example, a description of how to
single function, if copied from the Emacs manual, requires the
inclusion of many kilobytes of extraneous text from invariant
sections.) Such restrictions are not allowed in free software
Second, there are restrictions on what formats a GFDL'd
manual can be
distributed in, which work to prohibit encryption and the
such restriction exists for free software licenses.
------- End of forwarded message -------
Maggiori informazioni sulla lista