On Wed, 2002-06-12 at 15:32, Branden Robinson wrote:
> However, an Invariant section, even if severable, still has DFSG
> problems.
>
> Copyright notices, license text, and something akin to the FDL 1.2
> draft's "endorsements" are about as far as I'm willing to go. For
> arbitrary invariant sections, even if they're removable, I think people
> need to be steered towards another license. This doesn't mean we can't
> make suggestions to authors about how achieve their goals.
Jeff Licquia's comment about attribution made me consider something else
- he's right, the only "worry" causing invariant sections is either
retaining attribution on good things (which isn't so much a problem,
it's not a horrible thing if someone doesn't) and more importantly in my
mind, not letting other people put words in your mouth, which is my
worry with modifiable documents.
I agree if it's not DSFG-free, it shouldn't be called D*L, and that the
need for a fully DFSG free license exists; I was just throwing out my
previous thoughts on the matter.
Since the matter in question boils down to attribution, what if there
were sections that were marked such that if you make any changes, you
cannot use any other author's names without their permission, e.g. the
FSF could mark the GNU Manifesto as such, and if someone changed that
section, they would have to remove the FSF's name from it, or get their
permission? This solves my problems, and is significantly more free than
the FDL or the removal option.
--
- Joe Wreschnig <piman@sacredchao.net> - http://www.sacredchao.net
"What I did was justified because I had a policy of my own... It's
okay to be different, to not conform to society."
-- Chen Kenichi, Iron Chef Chinese
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part