Re: The GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) and /usr/share/common-licenses
Dale Scheetz <dwarf@polaris.net> writes:
> I find it ... foolish to declare a license to be free IFF some clauses of
> the license are not exercised. Using this language, any proprietary
> license becomes free as long as none of the proprietary sections are
> inforced by the author...
>
> The license is a complete text. It is either free or it isn't. Selective
> editing creates a new license that may or may not actually exist.
No, that's not the case. Any options are chosen by the author at the
time of licensing the work. It's not a matter of enforcement, it's a
matter of choosing what variant of the license to use on a specific
piece of documentation.
This may mean that piece of documentation using the FDL with certain
options may not be free, and that a piece of documentation using the
FDL with different options may be free. Think of the FDL as a
meta-license, and specific instances as used in packages as the real
license.
--
Alan Shutko <ats@acm.org> - In a variety of flavors!
Art is the tree of life. Science is the tree of death.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: