Re: Results for Debian's Position on the GFDL
Glenn Maynard <glenn@zewt.org>
>
> 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. [...]
> > Please let's concentrate on the software: it's worth looking
> > at licences, but software is the thing of interest.
>
> [...] 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 think we have seen too many "check each case" licences to call it rare.
There are also some licences which make software non-free if some of their
options are exercised.
> 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. [...]
I don't believe calling something abstractly "free" is helpful,
nor calling a *licence* rather than a work "DFSG-free". At worst, the
ambiguity of that jargon is unhelpful when discussing this with the rest
of the world.
--
MJR/slef
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct
Reply to: