Re: GNU FDL 1.2 draft comment summary posted, and RFD (fwd)
Joe Wreschnig <piman@sacredchao.net>:
>> How about making it compatible with the GPL?
/cheer
On 12 Jun 2002, Joe Wreschnig wrote:
> I would like to see some way to mark sections unmodifiable but
> removable/renamable, e.g. acknowledgements or dedications, at the very
> least.
Start with "why is the GPL not suitable for documents". I've heard 3
arguments so far:
1) because it says "software" and "source code", and these are unclear
terms for documentation.
2) Because it allows too much freedom. Why, anyone could change what I
created in a way I don't like, or even make it into a something that
offends me.
3) Because it allows too much freedom. Someone could take my work and put
their name on it.
Personally, I don't find #1 to be a problem, but I understand the
argument, so I see value in coming up with a GPDL or GPML (General Public
Documentation/Media License) that clarifies the terms.
#2 is admittedly a strawman representation of the objection, but it seems
to be real. It's either a miunderstanding of what freedom is, or an
actual desire not to release the work freely. That's fine, but I don't
see how it would be reconciled by making a new license.
#3 IMO should be handled by trademark (or if required, naming
limitations), exactly as it is for software.
> 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.
Here we're getting to the crux of #3. Why is it harder to misrepresent
someone with software than with documents? Is it simply that it's easier
to modify a document, so the freedom is expected to be used by a wider
variety of people?
> Perhaps it could be made compatible with a clause "Any section not
> marked as an Immutable/Invariant/Unchangeable/Whatever they are called
> if they exist section may be relicensed under the GNU GPL or GNU LPGL,
> version 2 or later, as published by the Free Software Foundation."
I like this a lot. It doesn't solve the fundamental problem (immutable
sections are simply unfree), but in the case where they're not used, it
makes it easy to use the text in GPL software.
--
Mark Rafn dagon@dagon.net <http://www.dagon.net/>
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: