Re: Clarifying non-free parts of the GNU FDL
On 2004-09-21 19:09:18 +0100 Roger Leigh <rleigh@debian.org> wrote:
If the documentation was to remain GFDL licenced, would be possible to
add a clarification to the licence in order to counter the main
problems which would affect this work? [...]
In general, I think they should grant exceptions to part of the
licence and give additional permissions, rather than issue
"clarifications" that contradict the licence or its author.
The work is written in
Docbook/SGML, and contains no invariant sections. [...]
Does it contain any of the other modification-restricted sections?
If these clarifications were to be made, would the licence be
considered DFSG-free? Are there any other possible amendments that
could be made to make the licence DFSG-free?
With extensive additions, I think it could be DFSG-free. It will
probably end up as non-copyleft, as all future authors would need to
use the same extras.
Lastly, are there any alternative licences available? The author (and
copyright holder) of the work would prefer a licence suited to
documentation rather than programs (which I don't disagree with).
The GPL-2 is the usual recommendation here for this situation if you
want copyleft. Its definition of "Program" can include documentation.
For a docbook document, it seems particularly useful because of the
source code concept.
BTW, please could you CC me on any replies--I'm not subscribed to
debian-legal.
Done.
--
MJR/slef My Opinion Only and not of any group I know
Creative copyleft computing - http://www.ttllp.co.uk/
http://www.thewalks.co.uk stand 13,Lynn Carnival,12 Sep
Reply to: