Re: Results for Debian's Position on the GFDL
Anthony DeRobertis writes:
> I believe there are essentially two reconciliations we can have for each
> problem listed in the position statement [2]: Either "that does not make
> things non-free" or "that is not the intended reading of the license,
> stop nit-picking so much."
For the "DRM" restriction, I think that "that is not the intended reading
of the license" applies. The FSF clearly did not intend to keep people
from using chmod on a GFDL document, and did not intend other problems
pointed out. The sloppy wording is not a danger, as no one is going to
take legal action over such issues, and if they did, courts tend to
interpret these things using reasonable standards, not like robots.
It still would be advisable for the FSF to make the language clear.
For the "Transparent and Opaque Copies" provision, I think Anthony is
right on the FTP server question, and the other issues brought up in
this section give reasons why the GFDL is sometimes a PITA, but just
because the PITA provisions differ from those in the GPL don't necessarily
put the provisions over the line; it's a judgment call, and the Debian
developers have evidently made the judgment that the issue is tolerable.
Remember, the words "This is a compromise" appear in the DFSG, despite
the fact that the denizens of debian-legal resist compromise.
That is, the necessity to make a written offer good for three years
is sometimes painful, as is the necessity to keep a transparent copy
available for one year. I did not understand why debian-legal found
the latter provision a DFSG violation. I can understand why people
don't like it, but evidently the Debian developers don't think it's
worth throwing away most of the documentation over.
PITA = pain in the ass, BTW
Reply to: