Re: xfig-doc has license problems in examples
On Tue, Oct 16, 2001 at 11:28:08AM +0100, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
> Also, you could, if you wanted, include the entire unmodified GPL and
> add an introductory section that changes the meaning or what follows.
Like Guile does. That's the Right Way to Do it. Okay, I admit it, I
can't find any examples of actually illegal GPL-ripoffs, just plenty
of "inspired by", like MPL (or anything with "PL" in it) which is
legal. Though, these examples certainly show why some people would
want to be able to modify licenses. I think that the drawbacks of
allowing modified versions of the GPL are far greater than the
advantages, which is why I don't mind that the GPL only allows
verbatim copying of itself.
My main point is that there are things that aren't DFSG-free, and
that, as long as it isn't things like software, fonts or
documentation, it's fine.
Like background images and datafiles for games - they could have a
license saying it's okay to change the format of them, but not to make
any "artistic" changes. Sure, that'd wouldn't be as good than totally
free, but it's free enough. I even think I can recall RMS saying
something to that extent (not to imply that he is an ever-correct god,
but I find that he often, not always, has good things to say).
So my suggestion stands. It would be a good thing to have DFSG, DFAIG
(art/information) and DFDD (documentation). The DFAIG should allow
free verbatim distribution and freely 'changing formats', eg. svg to
png or dvi to xml. It should encourage people to allow modification of
content as well, but not require it. (The DFAIG would apply to things
like licenses and books.) The DFDD should require that modification of
technical things is allowed.
Sunnanvind (sitting in the library, having a dizzy fit as I write
this, apologies for any grammar errors).