[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: More about GFDL

Cesar Martinez Izquierdo wrote:
> El Viernes 22 Abril 2005 14:37, Maciej Dems escribió:
>> I have a simple question concerning the GFDL discussion.
>> Does the GFDL documentation which currently does not contain any
>> invariant section have to go to non-free as well?
Yes, until the GFDL is revised, mainly due to the so-called "anti-DRM

First of all, to avoid Invariant-Section-like problems, the document also
must include no cover texts.  Acknowledgements and Dedications appear to
suffer similar problems (though it's unclear).  (One of the things which
makes these worse than similar requirements in other licenses is that these
apparently must be included *in* rather than *alongside* the document, and
presumably in the table of contents as well.  The title preservation
requirements are also troublesome.)

But without all of these?  Still not free.  The "anti-DRM clause", as
written, makes the GFDL documentation non-free.  (We believe that this is a
mistake and hope that it will be fixed in the next version.)

In addition, the "transparent and opaque forms" section is of uncertain
freeness, and we haven't got a clarification.  It's unclear, but the
license may also prohibit pseudonymous authorship, which would be non-free,
and we haven't got a clarification.

This space intentionally left blank.

Reply to: