Missing documentation with emacs25
- Anmelden oder Registrieren um Kommentare zu schreiben
Hi,
The manual of Emacs 25 in the trisquel repository is missing. In debian they put the package emacs-common-non-dfsg in non-free.
The documetation about emacs is not "free"?
I build the last version from source to get the doc. It's not really a problem for me but it'll be nice to apt-get it from the repository.
This is because the core documents of Emacs were licensed under GNU Free Document License (GFDL) with "Invariant Sectors".
Debian considers documents that are licensed under GFDL and contain "Invariant Sectors" as nonfree. In other words, Debian considers GFDL a non-free license.
However, if Trisquel considers GFDL a free/libre license, it could decide to include "emacs-common", no matter how Debian or Ubuntu judges this issue.
It is more complex than that. It's all specifically about the GNU Manifesto, which talks about about what GNU is and why it exists.
See https://www.gnu.org/software/emacs/manual/html_node/emacs/Manifesto.html
This one particular piece can't be changed or removed from the Emacs documentation but everything else can be. Software freedom is is a right that nonfree software developers have been continually been taking away from users. Sadly most of the software-using public has no knowledge of this impact on their rights so it's good to bring up this issue of what is software freedom, what it GNU, why does it exist, and have a conversation.
Debian doesn't seem to like that they can't change the GNU Manifesto to say something different, or even remove it completely. So they plopped the whole of the Emacs docs into nonfree over the issue. Draw your own conclusions.
> Debian doesn't seem to like that they can't change the GNU Manifesto to say something different, or even remove it completely
I doubt that they wanted to do this. After all, they did allow it in their repo, it's just in the non-free section. However, while the FSDG exempts "artistic works that have an aesthetic (rather than functional) purpose, or statements of opinion or judgment" the DFSG has no such exemption and applies equally to code as well as cultural works. The GNU invariant text is a work that does not allow modification, and by Debian standards it makes no difference that it is a work of opinion rather than code or technical documentation. This is simply a case where Debian and FSF standards differ.
"After all, they did allow it in their repo, it's just in the non-free section."
The Debian folk seem to try to make clear that nonfree is not part of Debian.
"I doubt that they wanted to do this."
But at least have the *ability*, which is really the same. The lack of the *ability* to change or remove it caused this to go into nonfree. Hence "Debian doesn't seem to like that they can't change the GNU Manifesto to say something different, or even remove it completely." Since they do not have the *ability* to. Because it didn't end up in their repo if nonfree isn't part of Debian. I think you've proven my point. Thank you.
> The Debian folk seem to try to make clear that nonfree is not part of Debian.
I agree with the FSF position that Debian shouldn't be endorsed because non-free is hosted on their servers, regardless of whether they consider it "part" of Debian. Still, they are hardly suppressing the GNU manifesto if it is available in one of the repos hosted by them.
> I think you've proven my point.
Not really. Your first comment indicated that Debian's decision had something to do with the GNU manifesto specifically. Actually, they apply this same standard to everything in their main repo (that everything in it, not just code or functional data, should be free.) If they allowed the GNU manifesto in main, that would be a violation of the DFSG. Why should they give special treatment to GNU? Works that don't allow modification always go in non-free, whether it's code or anything else. (And yes, I know they were inconsistent with this in the past when they allowed nonfree firmware in main, but that is no longer the case)
I am a translator!
Why should they give special treatment to GNU?
Is there any evidence that they actually do not give special treatment to GNU, such as examples where they put something in non-free only because of an invariant section that is an opinion? That could be with the GFDL or some other license.
Hmm. I am not aware of any non-GNU software that contains a work of opinion. However, from what I have seen they are very particular about removing anything (code, documentation, text files, artwork, music, etc.) from their main repo that is not under a fully free license. There are certainly many examples of artwork that has been removed, and I have not seen any works of opinion under a nonfree license in the main repo.
As I said, the DFSG do not make any distinction between different categories of works. If you find a work of opinion in Debian that is under a license that prohibits modification, it is a bug and the maintainer will remove it once brought to their attention.
> Why should they give special treatment to GNU?
Because they are a GNU/Linux distro?
The GNU manifesto is free for anyone who shares the goals of software freedom. I guess that's the irony jxself is pointing to.
But it's not free in the sense of free culture: https://freedomdefined.org/Definition which says (emphasis mine):
In order to give everyone the ability to improve upon a work, the license must not limit the freedom to distribute a modified version (or, for physical works, a work somehow derived from the original), *regardless of the intent and purpose of such modifications.*
GFDL with invariant sections forbids some types of modifications, so it is considered nonfree: https://freedomdefined.org/Licenses#GNU_Free_Documentation_License. FSF doesn't agree with the free culture movement, so its opinion will differ.
Debian policy doesn't allow anything under such "verbatim copies" licenses in its main repo. Unlike the FSDG, this applies to software, artwork, documentation, etc. If a game has artwork that cant be modified, that is also be forbidden. It has nothing to do with the GNU manifesto specifically. They also remove various other files from Emacs such as etc/JOKES (a collection of humorous emails with unclear copyright status, making it nonfree).
FSF doesn't agree with the free culture movement, so its opinion will differ.
In his talk "Copyright vs. community", RMS defines three categories of copyrightable works: the functional works (software, recipes, educational works, reference works, text fonts, etc.) where all four freedoms should always apply, the works expressing opinions (memoirs, essays, etc.) that should not be modifiable, and works of art and entertainment, which can be modifiable right away if the author wants to but it is not a moral obligation (and nobody should have to wait decades to have the right to modify that kind of work, unlike in the current system).
That is why I am pretty sure RMS would justify the invariant section by saying that the GNU Manifesto is not a cultural work but a work expressing his opinion, which should not be modifiable to not misrepresent him.
Yes, that is RMS's position. I didn't know that he made a distinction between works of opinion and cultural works, but my point is that Debian doesn't make any such distinction. Everything in their main repo should have the same four freedoms, whether it is functional or not. So their exclusion of Emacs documentation from the main repo has nothing to do with the specifics of the GNU manifesto, the license just doesn't satisfy their criteria for inclusion.
My guess is that the free culture advocates would prefer that RMS use a license that allows modification as long as you make it clear that the work is modified.
- Anmelden oder Registrieren um Kommentare zu schreiben