Re: various opinions on Debian vs the GFDL
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: Re: various opinions on Debian vs the GFDL
- From: Richard Braakman <email@example.com>
- Date: Thu, 1 May 2003 13:53:14 +0300
- Message-id: <20030501105314.GA3426@cs140102.pp.htv.fi>
- In-reply-to: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- References: <Pine.LNX.email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <20030430135106.GA15186@nic.fr> <email@example.com>
On Wed, Apr 30, 2003 at 06:26:07PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Scripsit Stephane Bortzmeyer <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> > Is it a consensus on debian-legal that a GFDL work *without* any
> > Invariant or Cover is indeed free and has no problem being distributed
> > in "main"?
> I believe so. There is some fudging about the precise definition of
> opaque and transparent formats, but I'm not aware that anyone thinks
> they would be showstoppers in and of themselves.
Actually, I do. I hope this is just a bug in the license that the FSF
is willing to rectify, though.
The definition of a Transparent copy is so implementation-specific
that a sound file can never be part of a GFDLed document. I think
this is a significant restriction on modification.