Re: Interpreting the GFDL GR

[olive <olive.lin@versateladsl.be>]

Nathanael Nerode wrote:

> I do not think that the GR said that Debian should try to guess the
> licensor's meaning when determining *distributability*.  That seems even
> more dangerous.  Doing so when interpreting the DFSG simply opens up
> Debian's users to liability if they ASSume that a package in main is free. 
> But doing so when determining distributability opens up Debian to direct,
> primary liability.
>
> If that's what the developers meant, they should have said so.
> I'm sorry I didn't notice this earlier, before the GRs; the "hmm, wait,
> isn't ftpmaster download access restricted?" moment didn't come into my
> head until today.

Choice 1 said explicitely that Debian would continue to ship GFDL in its 
non-free section. So that advocators of choice 1 advocate a vote which 
would oblige Debian to violate copyright (obviously your "pratical" 
problem would remain the same if GFDL would be moved in the non-free 
section).

You are in fact showing the absurdity of such litteral reading. 
Obviously GFDL simply means that you cannot prevent a user who have 
received a copy of a GFDL to exercice his rights.

Olive