Re: {SPAM} Question about GFDL licensed works
Daniel Ruoso dijo [Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 05:17:27PM -0300]:
> Hmmm... I still didn't buy this argument... But it has been argued that
> it is not the intent of this license clause and that, because of that,
> it would not be enforceable, as, even the text not saying that, some
> other references around are sufficient to disable this type of
> enforcement of the license.
>
> I don't know where are these references (probably RMS comments), but, as
> we agree it is a bug in the license, it's quite possible that such text
> exists (there is a message from RMS saying he never thought this could
> be applied with GFDL terms).
But then again, if I chose to license something under the GFDL as it
is now, being aware of this bug/feature, I have created a work that is
clearly non-free, and which is licensed under the GFDL and has no
invariant sections.
I don't care what RMS wanted to say, but I liked the license as a good
way to find you not respecting it - I can sue people!
So, at least until a new revision is published, GFDL cannot be seen as
free. And works licensed under the current revision with no "or later"
provisions cannot be seen as free.
Greetings,
--
Gunnar Wolf - gwolf@gwolf.org - (+52-55)5623-0154 / 1451-2244
PGP key 1024D/8BB527AF 2001-10-23
Fingerprint: 0C79 D2D1 2C4E 9CE4 5973 F800 D80E F35A 8BB5 27AF
Reply to: