Re: GNU FDL 1.2 draft comment summary posted, and RFD
Joe Wreschnig <piman@sacredchao.net> wrote:
> > How about making it compatible with the GPL? It would be really nice
> > to be able to take documentation and put it into a program, and vice
> > versa.
> >
> > To that end, I would suggest making it simply the GPL but with a
> > clarification of what object code means. In particular, since source
> > code is well defined ("preferred form of the work for making
> > modifications to it"), I would say that object code is anything
> > derived from source code but not actually source code itself.
>
> I would like to see some way to mark sections unmodifiable but
> removable/renamable, e.g. acknowledgements or dedications, at the very
> least. I don't like or understand the FDL policy of making them
> unremovable, but I do understand the need for making certain sections
> unmodifiable (it's a lot harder to misrepresent someone with source code
> than with documents). Remember, ideally this is not just for program
> documentation.
In that case, the unmodifiable parts are not DFSG free. Currently,
there is a de-facto exemption for copyright statements, license texts,
and related material. I'm not real crazy about extending that to
someone's dedication to their goldfish.
However, even this doesn't accomplish your aim. If I can remove the
section, then I can still replace it with something that the original
author might be horrified at. You really have to get used to the idea
that people can modify it in ways that are unexpected and perhaps
distasteful. That is what happens with freedom. If you don't want
that to happen, then don't put the material under a free license.
Regards,
Walter Landry
wlandry@ucsd.edu
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: