discuss: Documentation licensing
Subject:
Re: Documentation Licensing
From:
doug jensen ####@####.####
Date:
8 Apr 2004 17:52:46 -0000
Message-Id: <20040408175214.GA2948@debian>
On Wed, Apr 07, 2004 at 09:48:50PM -0700, Rick Moen wrote:
> Now, some while later, a second author wishes to create a derivative
> work reusing material from the GFDLed work, to address a different
> topic. Unfortunately for him, he finds that the work also includes an
> invariant section that addresses his topic. That section was off-topic
> for the first author's work (thus meeting that requirement for invariant
> status), but sadly topical for the second work -- which means the second
> author would not be keeping it Secondary, and thus his planned
> derivative work wouldn't satisfy the first author's terms of usage.
Could you give an example where that, would happen/has happened, as opposed to
the fact that it could theoretically happen? What I'm wondering about,
is the practicality of the topic shift.
On a related note from a personal point of view; I understand why RMS
continues the quest to ensure that people understand why software must
be free as in freedom. If we stray very far from the basic guidelines
of the FSF, we may find ourselves slowly moving back to a proprietary
model, where everyone is trying to protect their individual contribution
at the expense of the community. To that end, I believe that everyone
using GPLed software needs to understand that the free (no cost) part is
not what is important, but that the free (freedom) part is important.
Isn't that the intent of invariant sections, from the FSF point of view?
How can the importance of freedom be communicated more effectively? So
far the general public doesn't seem to be getting it, thus RMS feels the
need to keep trying to inform them. Rick, I feel certain that you
understand the importance of the freedom part, do you know of a better
way to communicate that to everyone, without adding the bloat to the
license?
--
Doug Jensen
