Re: RFC about copyrights and right package section for W3C docs.
On Thu, Sep 20, 2001 at 10:01:55PM +0200, Robert Bihlmeyer wrote:
> David Starner <email@example.com> writes:
> > I don't see the distinction. Are icons metadata? The name almost certainly
> > is . . . but we made a special exception for name changes in the DFSG.
> Icons are not metadata. The author is metadata, as is the publisher,
> and when something was published.
None of which we were talking about; all of which the GPL forces
you to preserve on source code.
> > > You can't take package X from main,
> > > change /usr/share/doc/X/copyright, and redistribute it (except for
> > > packages in the public domain).
> > But that's fraud. We can't do that for legal and ethical reasons. That
> > has nothing to do with removing some rant that the original author
> > wrote.
> Have you actual examples of rants that are protected by FDL invariant
> sections to point at, or do you make this up while you go along?
Look at the gcc info pages. "Funding Free software" is clearly marked
uneditable at the bottom, and is also listed as invariant in the
license tag (I had to look in the source file - it's not listed in
the /usr/share/doc/gcc-3.0-doc/copyright, nor could I find it in the
info files.) "GNU and Linux" is not, amazing enough . . .
> * Acknowledgements
> Robert Bihlmeyer wants to thank Gnomovision for their support. They
> basically paid him to do nothing so he could write the Frobster3000
> Do you consider this DFSG-free?
> Is removing this less unethical than
> removing my name altogether?
Yes, but not much.
> From my viewpoint, its like BSD/advertising. Not pretty, but free.
> > I don't see where metadata is specified in the DFSG,
> It isn't. But the DFSG don't state that every bit of a package must be
> modifiable, either. I take it that every functional part must be
> modifyable at least.
"(3) The license must allow modifications and derived works . . ."
No qualifications on modifications here. 4 is the patch clause, which
makes no qualifactions on what can be modified, just how, except for
name or version changes. It doesn't let you restrict what can be
modified, and it only applies to source code.
> Finally, applying the Debian Free *Software* Guidelines may be a bit
> off, altogether.
Oh, indeed! I emphatically agree. But if we're going to ignore the DFSG,
I'd like some coherent consensus on acceptable licenses for documentation,
instead of just ad-hoc decisions.
David Starner - firstname.lastname@example.org
Pointless website: http://dvdeug.dhis.org
When the aliens come, when the deathrays hum, when the bombers bomb,
we'll still be freakin' friends. - "Freakin' Friends"