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

Re: Documentation licenses (GFDL discussion on debian-legal)



Nothing contained herein can or should be construed as legal advice.
IANAL. YPANAL. IHL.

On Wed, 04 Dec 2002, Richard Braakman wrote:
> And even if you lift only a single chapter from a GFDLed document,
> you have to copy all of its Invariant Sections verbatim.

That should most likely read something like copying more than is
acceptable usage of copyrighted material without copying the invariant
sections verbatim.

> The combination of immutability and nonremovability is what makes
> them non-free, 

Depending on what portions of the documentation are under the
immutable nonremoveable section. I'd expect most people to agree that
placing the copyright and license under in a immutable nonremoveable
section doesn't make the documentation non-free, as, in most
copyrighted source code, the copyright and license are non-separable
and immutable themselves. [These options are what makes the GFDL so
tenuous to fit into a free or non-free category. Any decision as to a
particular piece of documentation necessarily requires that the
content and license options exercised under the GFDL be examined.]

Perhaps the DFDG could (in its detailed section) address which options
of the GFDL cannot be exercised if the documentation is to be included
in debian (with certain exeptions as agreed on?)

[On that note, before I contribute more to this discussion, I see some
archive reading in my future. {Links to related discussions|topics are
always appreciated.}]


Don Armstrong

-- 
I leave the show floor, but not before a pack of caffeinated Jolt gum
is thrust at me by a hyperactive girl screaming, "Chew more! Do more!"
The American will to consume more and produce more personified in a
stick of gum. I grab it. -- Chad Dickerson

http://www.donarmstrong.com
http://www.anylevel.com
http://rzlab.ucr.edu

Attachment: pgpvLCW2CfYjo.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: