Re: GNU FDL 1.2 draft comment summary posted, and RFD

[Anthony DeRobertis <asd@suespammers.org>]

> I do not think we want to DFCL to attempt to restrict people from
> applying proprietary "transforms" to DFCL-licensed data, as long as the
> DFCL content is recoverable or otherwise available.  Hmm.  This could
> get really, really, thorny.  Consider:

Consider my 'proprietary' transformation of:

	gpg --decrypt

Or consider what a "font" means to PostScript. I don't want to 
pull out my postscript book, but I think the answer is 
"anything". I'm pretty sure a PostScript font can do, e.g, a 
Blowfish decrypt of the document on the fly.[0]

I'd love to say that every transform of the document must be 
available under the same terms. But I realize that this is not 
possible; do you have source to your printer's firmware?

So, we need to define transparent transforms, which need not be 
free, and nontransparent ones, which are effectively part of the 
source. I'm not sure how one does that.

Or we could do something like the GPL and exempt software 
commonly distributed with operating systems and printers. But 
I'd be wary of that one. Don't see how it'd stop my gpg 
--decrypt problem.
> It's fine to mandate that the professor supply a URL to the source-form
> of the document when we're talking about Carnegie-Mellon.  It's not so
> fine to mandate that when we're talking about a school that 
> doesn't even
> have a name in Ghana.

Well, I don't think we should worry much about Ghana. Either 
they don't care about copyright or they will get a copy from 
someone else who has put the URL on there.

We should allow re-use of the URL, just like the GPL does of 
3-year notices.

> > Worse, it violates the spirit of the DSFG.  "No discrimination against
> > fields of endeavor" means something.
>
> I disagree here.  You could say that the GNU GPL discriminates against
> people who don't distribute in source form only, [...]

Yes, the DFSG would not stand up in court. We know that ;-)

But I'd have a hard time ignoring it for a license that said:

	If you are an educational institution, you may follow the terms of the
	X11 license.

	If you are a non-profit or other non-commercial entity, you may follow
	the terms of the DFCL.

	If you are a commercial entity or publisher, you must follow the terms
	of the GPL.

and I imagine you would, too.

[0] This, btw, would be a very neat hack. Any takers?


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org