Re: GFDL - status?
Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sunday, Jul 6, 2003, at 18:39 US/Eastern, MJ Ray wrote: I think that GFDL is only called a free documentation licence which is probably technically accurate, even if I don't like it. The only sense in which the GFDL is a free documentation license is that I didn't have to pay to download it from http://www.gnu.org/. You disagree that the documentation part of a GFDL-covered work is acceptably licensed? I do not talk about the work as a whole, which seems clearly not to be. Some of the format restrictions are questionable, I guess. This is all semantics and doesn't really change the current situation, but it's probably why FSF called it the free documentation licence rather than free document licence and is a useful thing to remember. I don't think it's useful to start trying to claim that it isn't a free documentation licence and obscures the real point that matters to us here: can this whole work be included in Debian? Related points that I consider interesting and relevant to what happens next are: is there any legal basis for distinguishing programs from other literary works? From other electronically stored works? What about fonts? Encoding tables? Is DFSG sufficiently general? -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know. http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ jabber://[EMAIL PROTECTED] Creative copyleft computing services via http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ Thought: Changeset algebra is really difficult.
Re: GFDL - status?
On Sun, Jul 13, 2003 at 03:59:00PM -, MJ Ray wrote: Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sunday, Jul 6, 2003, at 18:39 US/Eastern, MJ Ray wrote: I think that GFDL is only called a free documentation licence which is probably technically accurate, even if I don't like it. The only sense in which the GFDL is a free documentation license is that I didn't have to pay to download it from http://www.gnu.org/. You disagree that the documentation part of a GFDL-covered work is acceptably licensed? I do not talk about the work as a whole, which seems clearly not to be. Some of the format restrictions are questionable, I guess. Is my license which requires you to buy a jar of pickle relish every time you run the program a free software license? It isn't the *software* that costs you money, it's only the pickle relish that's attached to it by the license that has this non-free property. -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer pgpd19rvpxvCo.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: GFDL - status?
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Is my license which requires you to buy a jar of pickle relish every time you run the program a free software license? The act of running the program is not restricted by a copyright licence, so would that even be a valid licence? If not, it's clearly not free. Likewise, nothing in GNU FDL can require you to get the invariant sections when you read the documentation. Maybe a better question is whether a free software licence can require you to receive a jar of pickle relish with the software, and to give a jar of pickle relish with every copy you distribute? Actually, I think even that analogy may be flawed unless we have an unlimited public-access pickle relish supply, but this pickle-passing licence may even pass all DFSG tests, IIRC. Bizarre. (Remember, I know this doesn't directly change the opinion of FDL.) -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know. http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ jabber://[EMAIL PROTECTED] Creative copyleft computing services via http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ Thought: Changeset algebra is really difficult.
