Rufus Pollock wrote:
And I'd be very interested to hear your (and others) views on this new
version. In particular will it change what's written about the GFDL at:
http://okd.okfn.org/licenses/
From a brief look the answer appears to be yes as they've cleaned up
the DRM-related stuff in section 2
Yes. I'm hoping that will make the licence more palatable to Debian as well.
on verbatim copying and section 3 on
copying in quantity and addressed the invariant section issues in
section 4 on modfications.
You still have to copy invariant sections, acknowledgements and
dedications, so they are still not Free if present. And you can always
add them, so work can be infected by non-Free work at any time. But none
of this is a change from the old FDL.
The problem is that invariant sections clash glaringly with the Four
Freedoms, which are now included in the preamble. One or the other has
to go. :-)
And the "transparent format" requirements are asymmetric. PDF isn't
allowed but PNG is.
The Simple FDL looks *very* good. It has no invariants, you can move FDL
work with no invariants to it, and it really is much simpler. But it
needs to lose dedications, which can be used for mischief. No anti-DRM
as well, which is a shame but acceptable. I'd say the SFDL is preferable
to the FDL for everyone except Stallman. ;-)
I'm worried that the FSF are talking about a Wiki licence. This is a bad
idea, the SFDL is sufficient. If the Wiki licence is any less
restrictive it should just be the SFDL.
- Rob.
_______________________________________________
fc-uk-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/fc-uk-discuss
