discuss: [Debian removes free documentation / technical aspects]
Subject:
Re: [discuss] [Debian removes free documentation / technical aspects]
From:
Jean-Christophe Helary ####@####.####
Date:
16 Apr 2006 05:07:37 -0000
Message-Id: <9D0C62EF-DFFA-48F5-961C-09CD7B0C58B7@mx6.tiki.ne.jp>
On 2006/04/16, at 12:29, David Lawyer wrote:
> Although you didn't necessarily imply that the DFSG are OK, I don't
> think they are very good. The major problem with them is that they
> mainly state what the license must not restrict, not the rights that
> the license must grant. This results in possible loopholes. For
> example, if a license doesn't have any restrictions, then the
> copyrighted work is still very much restricted by copyright law. In
> this case, for the DFSG to apply, such a license that has no
> restrictions must be interpreted as one that has all the restrictions
> of copyright law. Such an interpretation is of debatable validity.
> So the DFSG should be redone to mainly specify what rights the licence
> should grant.
My understanding was that licenses (free or not) apply exclusively to
copyrighted material. Which means that unless a document is put in
the public domain (and thus cannot have its use restricted by _any_
form of licensing) all the rules regarding copyright apply. And that
is regardless of the license.
The play on word with "copyleft" in only a play on word and does not
mean that there is no copyright on the free documents.
A licence cannot grant rights not allowed by copyright law. Those are
two different realms.
Jean-Christophe Helary
