On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 21:41:29 +0400 olive wrote: > The greatest problem is that the GFDL is really badly written and > although I have always defended that it is free, it would be very > usefull if the FSF could one for all resolve these ambiguities.
I doubt that this will ever happen, now that the Debian Project
officially stated that these badly written clauses and ambiguities are
acceptable... :-(((
This GR resulted in a compromise where nobody wins: I'm really
disappointed.
GFDL'd works are *not* DFSG-free (even when they do not include any
unmodifiable & unremovable part): a GR cannot magically change this
fact (unless it modifies the DFSG themselves, which GR-2006-001 didn't).
[...]
> Some might argue that a court will read the GFDL in a more litteral
> sense. I do not think that because it seems very obvious that the
> copyright holder of a GFDL document don't want to restrict what you do
> with your own copy.
We cannot be sure (not even "reasonably sure").
I've seen every kind of awkward "free software supporters": many are
perfectly fine with Invariant Sections (or even with Creative Commons
non-commercial or no-derivative licenses), for instance.
Before seeing those people aggressively defend such restrictions, I
would have said: "Obviously, a free software supporter does *not* want
to restrict modification (or commercial use) of his/her own work!".
Now I'm not so sure anymore[1].
Likewise, I cannot be sure that someone who adopts the GFDL doesn't want
to restrict what I can do with my own private copy of his/her work...
[1] Well, just to nitpick: the sentence still holds for *true* free
software supporters, but true free software supporters *don't* release
works under the GFDL...
--
:-( This Universe is buggy! Where's the Creator's BTS? ;-)
......................................................................
Francesco Poli GnuPG Key ID = DD6DFCF4
Key fingerprint = C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4
pgpysnX39gbYg.pgp
Description: PGP signature
