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

Re: Proposed statement wrt GNU FDL

This reply consists only of non-topical editorial comments.

Anthony Towns wrote:
> In November 2002, version 1.2 of the GNU Free Documentation License (GNU
> FDL) was released by the Free Software Foundation after a long period
> of consultation. Unfortunately, some concerns raised by members of the
> Debian Project were not addressed, and as such the GNU FDL can apply
> to works that do not pass the Debian Free Software Guidelines (DFSG),
> and may thus only be included in the non-free component of the Debian
> archive, not the Debian distribution itself.

Maybe just because I had a headache at the time, but the first time I
read that sentence I thought you were saying the FDL license itself
could only go in non-free. You could eliminate any ambiguity by breaking
the last sentence into two.

> The GNU FDL includes a number of conditions, which apply to all modified
> versions, that disallow modifications. In particular, these are:

Maybe say "modified versions of a work". Also, it's at first confusing
to see the "modifid versions" .. "disallow modifications", maybe
s/disallow modifications/disallow certian modifications/

>    This is a very fundamental question. Debian's decision is based
>    on some fundamental premises: we are, at our heart, an operating
>    system distribution, so we're interested in making a good operating
>    system that you can do a lot with far more than distributing every

"lot with far more" is hard to parse, suggest punctuation or something.

> What About Unmodifiable Software Licenses Like the GNU GPL?
>    Many software licenses unfortunately disallow the creation ofderivative
                                                                 ^^ space
>    works. The FSF give everyone permission to distribute verbatim
>    copies of the GPL, eg, but do not give you permission to take the
                                does (unless FSF has a different number
				      than I think it has)

>  It's easy to misapply the GNU FDL.
>    The GNU FDL says that only "Secondary Sections" (a term it defines)
>    may be marked Invariant, but does not say what should happen if a
>    section that is not Secondary is listed as an Invariant Section.
>    The FSF itself has made this mistake several times[1], so we know
>    it's an easy mistake to make.

Your footnote [1] seems to be dangling.

> Given the GNU Projects influence on Debian, shouldn't the GNU Manifesto

> Why does this document use various Capitalisation Styles?
>  Because you haven't edited it yet.

Ok, fine so I think you should re-case the words in the questions of
the FAQ, as follows:

  What does it mean that this document is a draft?

  It's the Debian Free _Software_ Guidelines, stupid -- why apply them to 

  What about unmodifiable software licenses like the GNU GPL?
  Beyond allowing Invariant Sections, why does the GNU FDL suck?

  Why are unmodifiable sections a problem?
  Given the GNU project's influence on Debian, shouldn't the GNU Manifesto
  be included in the Debian GNU/Linux distribution anyway?
  Why does this document use various capitalisation styles?

There are also a few "invariant sections" here and there that should be
changed to "Invariant Sections".

see shy jo

Attachment: pgpkGFYCNXGQi.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: