discuss: Documentation licensing
Subject:
Re: Documentation Licensing
From:
Rick Moen ####@####.####
Date:
6 Apr 2004 22:07:19 -0000
Message-Id: <20040406220712.GU22228@linuxmafia.com>
Quoting Rahul Sundaram ####@####.####
> You are differing in what qualifies as a good free documentation
> license for me the primary criteria is that modifications should be
> redistributable without prior permission
I'm not sure we _are_ substantively differing. The above quality (that
you speak of) is what I refer to as that of being "forkable" -- and that
CC calls the Derivs property.
> Let me state what I consider good requirements
>
> 1) Should be modifiable and redistributable under the same license
> 2) should demand attribution
> 3) should allow commercial redistribution
>
> GNU FDL does match these requirements but it looks
> like it doesnt match debian's guidelines.
Very briefly:
1. I hope you agree that any use of the optional invariant sections
makes the content not "modifiable".
2. Section 2's DRM restriction clause (banning all "technical measures
to obstruct or control" reading and copying) appears to ban storing or
conveying GFDL-covered content over encrypted media or links, among
other things. Although the right to (say) put a document in a
password-covered Zip archive isn't in your list, I suspect silly
prohibitions of ordinary usage actions aren't OK with you.
Stallman said that FSF will look into changing that language to make
its intended scope clearer (barring _distribution_ on DRM-obscured
media), but for now it's present and problematic.
3. Section 3's Copying in Quantity clause requires that distributors
not merely _offer_ GFDLed documents' "transparent" renditions to the
public, but that it must actually be _included_. The software analogue
would be requiring that every binary RPM be bloated to include full
matching source code right _in_ the binary RPM, rather than giving
downloaders a choice of pulling down one but not the other. Again, this
technical doesn't contravene your "requirements" list, but is yet
another irksome restriction of common practice without reason.
> I am not sure what debian thinks of the license but I find this
> license to be appropriate
>
> http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/1.0/
Please note that (for whatever it's worth) I in fact use the above CC
licence for my Linuxmafia.com Knowledgebase (http://linuxmafia.com/kb/).
(Notice that it's ShareAlike _with attribution_.)
> I think we can allow GNU FDL documents but recommend
> the creative commons license for new documents and NOT
> allow variations or any other license
Personal opinion: Introduce GFDL 1.2-covered works today -- especially
any with invariant sections, and TLDP will regret it tomorrow.
--
Cheers, Bad Unabomber!
Rick Moen Blowing people all to hell.
####@####.#### Do you take requests?
-- Unabomber Haiku Contest, CyberLaw mailing list
