Re: GFDL is a DFSG-compliant license
Sunnanvind Briling <sunnanvind@fenderson.com> writes:
> I see. So it's okay that license text and history and stuff like that
> doesn't pass the DFSG? I can dig, but what does Branden say?
"it's okay"? The point is that it always did pass; that this was
always understood; that the DFSG never meant "every single bit" but
always acknowledged that restriction of the modification of certain
things was not important. Brandon also, as I understand him, doesn't
object per se to such things being in Debian--but he is nervous that
the DFSG seems to exclude them.
I think we are reaching a reasonable consensus on this discussion
(though obviously it's not up to me to somehow declare it)--so that we
collectively understand that the GFDL might be used improperly, and
that we will need to be careful when we see it to be sure it's used
properly.
The same is true of *all* licenses, including the GPL--there is just
no substitute for making sure the license is free, *and* that it is
being used properly, in each case. So in my opinion, since we agree
that the GFDL, if used properly, is not objectionable, the only
remaining question is whether we have some obligation to amend the
DFSG, taking note of Brandon's worries.
But as Bruce points out, such "invariant sections" are not anything
new, and it was never the point of the DFSG to exclude them, so that
means that the DSFG never meant that such things were to be excluded.
Reply to: