Re: Proposed statement wrt GNU FDL
Henning Makholm said:
> Perhaps the O.A.C. ought to be our next target, but let us fight one
> battle at a time.
EXPN O.A.C.?
(snip)
> While we should definitely include the hijacking example, some care
> should be exercised in phrasing an explanation of what we think it
> proves. In particular it should be very clear that we do not claim that
> the possibility of hijacking in itself contributes to
> DFSG-nonfreedom. (For example, BSD-licensed software and documention can
> be hijacked too). On the other hand, the hijacking scenario does help
> explain why we're mystified to see the FSF backing the license as a
> "copyleft".
Giving particular attention to the fact that the hijacking entity can use
the Invariant sections to prevent returning thier improvements to the
commons.
Example: SomeCo writes a user-friendly GNUware manual based in part on
the GNUware Manual (which is GFDL-licensed, so the SomeCo GNUware Manual
must be GFDL also). The SomeCo GNUware Manual has lots of useful
information in it, which the GNUware authors would like to incorporate.
Unfortunately, SomeCo included an invariant section which describes the
company and offers investment opportunities, and also the CEO's rant about
how all software should be proprietary (and licensed from SomeCo). The
original authors can not incorporate SomeCo's improvements without
including the company's advertisement, or appearing to endorse the CEO's
confused views.
--Joe
Reply to: