<quote who="Rufus Pollock" date="Mon, May 19, 2008 at 03:16:22PM +0100"> > With the Open Knowledge Definition we haven't explicitly stated that > invariant sections are a violation in the definition itself (perhaps > this could go in the annotated version). However in the conformant > licenses section [1] it does explicitly state: > > <quote> > The GFDL is only considered conformant if you > > * don't use invariant Sections or cover texts > * don't include an "Acknowledgements" or "Dedications" section > * amend the DRM restriction (section 2) to be less broad (for > example restricting to the requirement that the work is available > without TPMs) > </quote>
Right. The FCW definition doesn't explicitly state anything either but I (personally) mostly agree with your position. One exception might be acknowledgements but it's tricky. I don't think that invariant changelogs or history information, for example, are necessarily non-free if their goal is to maintain attribution. I've seen GFDL acknowledgement sections used that way. I also think that covertexts can be used and thought of like advert-clauses in the 4-clause BSD license which, while universally thought of as annoying, are also almost universally treated as free. Argument for another time, perhaps. Later, Mako -- Benjamin Mako Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mako.cc/ Creativity can be a social contribution, but only in so far as society is free to use the results. --GNU Manifesto
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ okfn-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.okfn.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/okfn-discuss
