I find it slightly funny that the invariant sections seemed to be a blocker to the relicensing.
I think the GPL3 dated exception relates to the Novel deal but I find it strange because although it is topical I'm not aware of an actual neccessity for that exception. I don't find it offensive but it makes me wary and I hope it doesn't bite later on. I don't know what the GFDL exception is about, could you enlighten? Did the authors of the work in question want their work to be relicensable? Perhaps there should be an explanatory note in each case - at least to presenting the reason in favourable light would make political sense. I don't like GFDL arbitrary restrictions like "five words" and so forth, but that's off topic... Sam -----Original Message----- From: Alex Hudson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: 03 November 2008 16:55 To: [email protected] Subject: GFDL 1.3 I made a comment on IRC about this, so I may as well vent here as well: <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/fdl-1.3.html> I'm not a big fan of these new extra permissions clauses, but limiting them by date so that only our special friends can make use of them seems peverse. Both GPLv3 and now GFDLv1.3 have them now, with dates that are back-dated before the publication of the licenses. Presumably they're back-dated because we don't want other GFDL material to suddenly become CC-BY-SA just by posting it on a wiki, but that - to me - kind of points out the antithetical nature of this modification to the spirit of the original license. Thoughts? Cheers, Alex. _______________________________________________ Discussion mailing list [email protected] https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion _______________________________________________ Discussion mailing list [email protected] https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
