On Thu, Feb 02, 2006 at 11:40:13AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > > Advertising clauses are not about the work > itself -- they are about ancillary activities, so are a different > issue.
Advertising clauses are much worse than if they applied only to the work. In fact they apply not only to the work but also to many activities of the users of software with advertising clause. Any program or documentation (even unrelated) that mention features of the software with the advertising clause have to include the advertising sentence. > > We also explicitly say in the DFSG that we hold these restrictions > > to still be free, since we explicitly name the GPL and the 4 clause > > BSD as examples of free licenses. Being unable to excise or modify > > a piece of secondary literature is onerous and inconvenient, but I > > am not sure it is sufficiently different to things we already accept > > to make it non DFSG free. > > You are also free to explicitly state that the GFDL > restrictions are also to be considered free. Hence, the 3:1 > requirement, to allow that statement to be inserted into the DFSG. He is free to explicitly state that GFDL restrictions are also free but he doesn't have to. There is nothing in DFSG that can make GFDL a non-free license. Anton Zinoviev -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
