Re: Interpreting the GFDL GR
On Thu, Mar 16, 2006 at 01:33:30AM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > Read in English, naturally by a native speaker, the license clearly
> > applies restrictions against "chmod", etc, and the above
> > interpretation does not come from the license.
>
> I agree on both counts. Yet rather than taking the GR to mean that
> restrictions against chmod are OK in general, I think the GR says that
> the GFDL should not be taken to imply restrictions against chmod. If
> that leads to using an interpretaion that does not come from the
> license, then so be it - it's a lesser evil than deciding that free
> software does not need to be chmodable.
I don't think "pretend the license doesn't place the restrictions it
does, tell people that it's free based on that, and encourage interpreting
licenses to suit one's convenience" is a lesser evil, just a different one.
Both mean that I'd never refer someone to Debian for licensing help--in
the former case, they'd be told that it's OK to prohibit chmod, and in the
latter, they're encouraged to bad, potentially dangerous practices.
(Not to say that I have any better idea of how to proceed from this GR.
It just doesn't seem to leave any acceptable options--but that fact doesn't
improve the bad options any.)
--
Glenn Maynard
Reply to: