discuss: Confusion about GNU FDL
Subject:
Re: Confusion about GNU FDL
From:
David Lawyer ####@####.####
Date:
15 May 2002 23:16:53 -0000
Message-Id: <20020515103640.A368@lafn.org>
On Wed, May 15, 2002 at 01:54:32PM +0200, ####@####.#### wrote:
> I have a related question about item 4.A:
>
> # In addition, you must do these things in the
> # Modified Version:
> #
> # A. Use in the Title Page (and on the covers, if any)
> # a title distinct from that of the Document, and
> # from those of previous versions (which should, if
> # there were any, be listed in the History section
> # of the Document). You may use the same title as
> # a previous version if the original publisher of
> # that version gives permission.
>
> This seems to make a fork of the project a bit difficult.
> OTOH it is not specified how many and what kind of
> characters suffice to make a title distinct.
It's one of the major problems with GFDL which is a license I don't
think we should recommend. But all other licenses, except perhaps some
written by the authors, have problems too,
>
> Anyway, in the Author Guide the complete text of the
> FDL is included as appendix A. OHTO the Reviewer HOWTO
> contains this:
> # [...] and is released under the terms of the
> # GNU Free Documentation License, which is hereby
> # incorporated by reference.
You can't incorporate it by reference. This license says:
* To use this License in a document you have written, include a copy of
* the License in the document and put the following copyright and
* license notices just after the title page:
It also says:
* 9. TERMINATION
* You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Document
* except as expressly provided for under this License. Any other
* attempt to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Document is
* void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License.
* However, parties who have received copies, or rights, from you under
* this License will not have their licenses terminated so long as such
* parties remain in full compliance.
LDP, sad to say, is distributing the document in violation of the
license (since we don't include a copy) and thus our rights under the
license are terminated. As a practical matter, there isn't much of a
problem since who's going to sue us for this? The Author Guide authors
wouldn't, and if they did, it could be shown that their negligence
contributed to the violation of the terms of the license so it would
almost be like suing oneself.
But anyone else (besides LDP) who distributes it is in violation of the
terms of the license too.
> What, that's all? No URL, no version number of the license,
> nothing about special sections. Can it really be that simple?
No. It's quite complex.
David Lawyer
