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

Re: Suggestion to maintainers of GFDL docs

Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho <ajk@debian.org> wrote:

> On 20030416T094049-0400, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
> > * Why you shouldn't use the GFDL:: Debian doesn't recommend using this
> license.
> > 
> > And what if this new section listing reasons _not_ to use this license
> > were made...  invariant!
> If we were to add to each GFDL'd document a section (invariant or not)
> saying, essentially, that we consider GFDL a non-free license (what else
> can that section say?), we would have to start moving such documents to
> nonfree at the same time.  Otherwise we'd be hypocrites.

You're quite right.  Forget about making it invariant.

> Personally I believe that simply moving them to nonfree is far more
> effective than such an added section.  Look at the publicity our stance
> against KDE used to generate when it had its license problem.

You're probably right.

But I still wouldn't encourage the use of the license without the
invariant parts being used since it allows derived works to add them.


Peter S. Galbraith, Debian Developer          <psg@debian.org>
GPG key 1024/D2A913A1 - 97CE 866F F579 96EE  6E68 8170 35FF 799E

Reply to: