Let's agree to disagree, withough trying to read the other party's opinions with the wrong semantics (a problem that happens too often in our environment, bts).
This I can agree to. :-) Me: > Later, after following the discussion in debian-legal and > elsewhere, after thinking about it ourselves, we came to the > conclusion that it has been a very risky choice, and we switched > away from it in the next edition of the book. Alfred: > Could you share these conclusions? As I wrote, we switched away from the FDL, whose major problem in this specific context is the risk of proprietarization by third parties. What risk for proprietarization? I can't see how you could make a free document into a non-free one. As for the discussion in debian-legal, the position statement already linked (http://people.debian.org/~srivasta/Position_Statement.xhtml) is a good summary, although it became much bigger than what one can easily digest in reasonable time (I didn't, actually). That position statement is sadly complete bunk, I have yet to get the time to write a refutation for it. Many, if not all, of the arguments there are based on a complete misunderstanding of the license, and what it actually says. Me: > [...] derived works whose technical contents can't be folded > back in the original manual. Alfred: > This is not entierly true, you can fold it back, but then you also > have to fold the invariant sections. I think this is a prefectly > valid thing to require. I disagree. If the competing publishing house adds a chapter and a cover text stating that it's "A Nestlè book" (just to use fake names), I can't really reuse their added chapter in my next edition. Why not? What is stopping you? As far as I can see it, you do not want to give credit to `Nestlè' for having written the chapter, one could compare this to refusing to include the copyright notice in a program, or similar. Cheers! _______________________________________________ Discussion mailing list [email protected] https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
