Re: Request for suggestions of DFSG-free documentation licences

[Ben Finney <bignose+hates-spam@benfinney.id.au>]

"Jordi Gutierrez Hermoso" <jordigh@gmail.com> writes:

> In practice, the GFDLed docs can be copied and modified as much as
> they need to be

The DFSG requires that *any* modification be allowed to the work, and
that the result be redistributable under the license. This is not the
case for the FDL, and certainly not for works combining GPL and FDL
covered works.

> the further modifications Debian claims they need are not needed;

Fortunately, the DFSG is drafted to let the *recipient* decide what
modifications they need to make to the work.

> invariant sections are *tiny* in comparison with the rest of the GNU
> manuals

We're not discussing GNU manuals. We're discussing works under the
FDL, a license that is available for anyone to apply to their works.

> I doubt that the FSF would sue for GFDL compliance

Again, the FDL is available for any party to apply to their work, so
speculation as to what the FSF would or would not do doesn't seem to
be relevant here.

> Also, it just doesn't make sense to modify some things

Fortunately, the DFSG requires that works be licensed such that the
recipient of the work can decide what modifications make sense.

-- 
 \       "I filled my humidifier with wax. Now my room is all shiny."  |
  `\                                                  -- Steven Wright |
_o__)                                                                  |
Ben Finney