Re: Results for Debian's Position on the GFDL
On Tue, Mar 14, 2006 at 10:28:06AM +0000, MJ Ray wrote:
> Not a stupid label in general, but a stupid label for licences. There's
> always a UW. Using the DFSG as some sort of licence certification
> scheme is a really bad idea and organisations that try to do so should
> die messily. Please let's concentrate on the software: it's worth looking
> at licences, but software is the thing of interest.
I disagree. d-legal should concentrate on the licenses. The software
it's applied to is very rarely relevant to the freeness question; it's
the license that makes the software free or not. Copyright holders,
can create the unusual situation of a work being free or not free in
disagreement with the license on its own, due to statements of intent--but
that's the rare exception, and rarely a good situation (say what you mean
in the license to begin with).
I'm not sure what you're suggesting. Maybe I'll understand if you relate
this back to the original topic. I don't believe a document placed under
the GFDL, with no invariant sections, is free. You can look at it from
the license, or by taking document under the GFDL and looking at the
resulting freedoms, and the conclusion doesn't change.
--
Glenn Maynard
Reply to: