Re: GFDL freedoms
On Sat, Apr 16, 2005 at 12:39:13AM +0200, David Schmitt wrote:
> > > > So I'm not sure why you couldn't also do it with text licensed under
> > > > the GFDL.
> > >
> > > Indeed. But this obviously then is no "free" work. Why should Debian want
> > > to distribute that in main?
> >
> > I'm not sure what you're asking, but the point was that you don't need the
> > author's permission, or a license, to use quotes or cite portions of a text
> > in another work.
>
> I'm asking why Debian would want to distribute a work which only is available
> under default-copright all-right-reserved clauses in main.
>
> Wouters example is bigger than citation. Think "This text based on
> $invariant_section", which would not be possible.
I don't think Wouter's example is valid, since information about FFT's is
closely related to sound editing and could probably not be allowed in an
invariant section of the documentation for a sound editor.
> > I can go to a library and look in books and use
> > information from those books to write a paper. I can do the same thing
> > with a document that has been released under the GFDL.
>
> But you cannot go and use the characters - say from Lord of the Rings - in
> your novel. The GFDL seems to be more permissive to me as it would allow you
> to use the characters, as long as you jump through certain loops, like
> attaching the invariant sections. Many people do not want to accept such as
> free.
I think it's reasonable, depending on what is in the invariant sections. It
seems like the GFDL tries very hard to limit what is in these sections. Maybe
the text is not perfect but the spirit is sound. The arguments I have seen
against the GFDL, for the most part, use extreme interpretations of the text
(interpretations which probably would not ever be accepted in a court of law,
imho).
--Adam
Reply to: