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

Re: Final Draft: Interpretive Guideline regarding DFSG clause 3

Scripsit ichimunki <debian-legal-list-user@ichimunki.com>
> On Wednesday 12 December 2001 12:56, Branden Robinson wrote:

> > 3) Works licensed under the GNU FDL meet the DFSG if:
> >    A) there are no Invariant Sections[*]; or
> >    B) the only Invariant Sections consist of license texts which
> >       apply to a work, or a substantively related work (such as the
> >       program being documented, in the case of a manual).

> So the crux of this proposal is that emacs (a signature piece in the history 
> of the Free Software) at least be moved into non-free,

Yeah. I wonder where all the bits about "individual good judgement
must be used" went. It seems to me that Branden has reacted to the
objections that too bright bright-line tests are not a good idea,
simply by defining another and even less flexible bright-line. What
good can possibly come of this?

> (imho) There is no reason to change the portion of the manual relating to 
> the historical rationale for the development of the software, or the 
> philosophy of Free Software, or the dedication of countless man-hours to

No, but there can be good reason to vant to not include them when one
reuses part of the manual.

Henning Makholm                      "They are trying to prove a hypothesis,
                             they are down here gathering data every season,
                       they're publishing results in peer-reviewed journals.
                     They're wrong, I think, but they are still scientists."

Reply to: