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

Re: The old DFSG-lemma again...

    At the same time I think you can understand why permitting works under a
    given license into Debian if they come from the FSF, but not some other
    organization, would be a problematic approach.

I agree.  Debian should permit GFDL manuals from any source, provided
the GFDL has been applied properly.  Otherwise it will miss out on
many manuals.

    No, I said "point taken" when you demonstrated that Debian developers
    should be dilligent in scrutizing a GPL'ed work for the existence of
    code that *isn't* under the GPL within it...

Please forgive my misunderstanding.

    That is not the same thing as having a work that is purportedly under
    the GNU FDL, and contains no evidence of any other copyrights or license
    terms, but which has critical material marked as Invariant Sections, or
    fails to properly identify Invariant Sections or Cover Texts.

They are not exactly the same, but they call for the same treatment.
So the difference is not significant.

    If I do detect the existence of such things, what am I to do?  What is
    their licensing?

Assuming it was set up this way by the author of the original version,
the GFDL has not been properly applied.  No matter what license
someone says he uses, it is always possible to fail to apply it
properly.  The consequences are basically the same: the work has to be
considered non-free.

    Usage of the OPL with either of the options, frankly, does not interest
    me since it flatly and uncontroversially fails the DFSG when this is the
    case.  So, for convenience, feel free to pretend in our discussions that
    those options do not exist when discussing the OPL.

I think it is a mistake to pretend.  These options have an effect even
when not used: their existence creates a temptation--some people will
see the options and *use* them.  Because of that, each free manual
licensed under the OPL is a strong temptation for others to make their
manuals non-free.

People who want terms like the OPL without the options should write a
license which is equivalent the OPL but has no options, and use that
rather than the OPL.  Then they will not tend to suggest to others
the possibility of making the manual non-free.

Reply to: