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

Re: GFDL and man pages

On Tue, 15 Jul 2003, Florian Weimer wrote:
> "Joe Moore" <joemoore@iegrec.org> writes:
> > Unless the FSF is the sole copyright holder of the relevant GFDL document,
> > their interpretation of the license is irrelevant.
> Then why do we discuss at all?

The court system is the interpretation that matters. 

However, until we actually get a few court decisions regarding (and
interpreting) the license, we're left with our reading and
understanding of it. The FSF folks occasionally are more lenient with
their interpretation of licenses than a very strict reading would
indicate. In cases where they are the sole copyright holder, that's
acceptable, especially in areas where the license is less than clear.

Yet, if there is someone else holding the license, without a statement
from them regarding its interpretation, we have to read the license
strictly, and conservatively. [In many cases the FSF says to effect:
"Well, the license may or may not preclude this, but we feel that it's
resonable for you to do X, Y and Z." In lieu of such a statement, we
should probably assume that we cannot do X, Y, and Z, even if it would
make such a license non-free.]

Don Armstrong

Clothes make the man. Naked people have little or no influence on
 -- Mark Twain 


Attachment: pgpF5aavx_ZSt.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: