discuss: gfdl (was: fdfl & debian guys)
Subject:
gfdl (was: fdfl & debian guys)
From:
David Lawyer ####@####.####
Date:
21 Apr 2003 22:49:13 -0000
Message-Id: <20030421224909.GA1236@lafn.org>
On Mon, Apr 21, 2003 at 09:18:50AM +0200, Sergiusz Pawlowicz wrote:
> could you please tell me in few words what is going on?
>
> http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/04/20/1357236
The GFDL (GNU Free Documentation License) is or isn't free, depending on
how one defines free. One objection by debian-legal is that the
invariant sections requirement, etc. makes gfdl non-free. The invariant
sections stay invariant forever, even when they become totally obsolete
and of only historical interest. Also someone at Debian-legal suggested
that even if a doc doesn't use invariant sections, it still could be
classified as non-free due to the "non-free" license. Actually, I have
a number of other objections to gfdl which would take several pages to
explain. I still think that LDP should try to come up with something
better but it's a difficult task.
Another point is that gfdl requires that a copy of the license be
included with any copy of the doc but authors usually haven't put a copy
in their docs. So distributing such copies is in violation of the
license. But who would sue us for that? The author? It's mainly the
author's fault that no license has been provided in the copy created
when someone downloads from tldp. This is another shortcoming of gfdl.
Perhaps I'll write a list of my objections to gfdl and post it here.
I should join debian-legal and participate in the debate.
What I think they should do first is come up with a list of objections
and present it to Stallman. If he will change it (but he may not), then
all should be OK. Actually, in my opinion, the Debian free software
guidelines are much in need of change also.
David Lawyer
