discuss: Documentation licensing
Subject:
Re: Documentation Licensing
From:
David Lawyer ####@####.####
Date:
7 Apr 2004 09:18:15 -0000
Message-Id: <20040407091803.GA700@lafn.org>
On Wed, Apr 07, 2004 at 12:29:50AM +0100, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> Hi
>
> > 1. I hope you agree that any use of the optional
> > invariant sections
> > makes the content not "modifiable".
I wouldn't completely agree. It's not 100% modifiable but the part that
can't be modified isn't the technical part so the technical content is
still 100% modifiable. What is wrong is that the invariant section
needs to have an expiration date. Otherwise we can have invariant
political statements that will be fully obsolete many decades later, but
which will still have to be kept in the doc.
> Yes. Thats optional and I hope that majority of
> existing documentation dont include it.
>
> >
> > 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
I don't think this was the intent and the intent can be inferred from
the license. So does it really ban this?
> > 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.
> >
> > 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_.
All you need to include is a link to the transparent rendition.
> I think TLDP doesnt have any explicitly stated criteria for licenses
> that are acceptable.
Oh yes we do. It's in the Manifesto.
> The problems stated with FDL though important are not as much a
> potential problem compared to the existing situtation
>
> I have seen this content on http://tldp.org/docs.html#howto
>
> "Non-Free Documents (contain license restrictions):
>
> *
>
> Rute Users Tutorial and Exposition
>
> Due to restrictive license provisions, the Rute document has
> been removed from the LDP, but can still be accessed from
> http://rute.sourceforge.net/
>
It violated the requirements in the Manifesto.
>
> So TLDP has classified atleast one such document as non free. So what
> I am pushing for here is certainly not new.
>
> The choices we can make are simple. We should specify a common set of
> criteria for licenses that makes them acceptable
>
We already do.
[snip]
David Lawyer
