Re: GFDL - status?
Richard Braakman <email@example.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 13, 2003 at 03:59:00PM -0000, MJ Ray wrote:
>> You disagree that the documentation part of a GFDL-covered work is
>> acceptably licensed?
> Yes. It is encumbered with invariant sections. That clearly doesn't
> meet DFSG#3, and it doesn't qualify for the exception in DFSG#4.
How are you not free to create derivative parts of the documentation
section and distribute it under the same terms (ie with invariants in
tow)? The invariant sections are not part of the documentation (and
they must not be documentation).
I'm not saying the complete work is DFSG-free. I'm just trying to give
a possible reason why it is named "free document*ation* licence".
>> [...] is there any legal basis for distinguishing programs from other
>> literary works?
> There seems to be; several European laws make specific exceptions for
> computer programs.
The exception in UK law is quite limited, classifying them as literary
works with just one exception from moral rights. Can anyone point us
to a survey of this? I can't find one.
> They don't define "computer program", as far as I know.
I've noticed that I've not found that, too. I wonder why?
> If it's electronically (YM digitally?) [...]
I think analogue tape representations are included, don't you?
Thanks for some interesting points (some trimmed in this reply).
MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know.
Creative copyleft computing services via http://www.ttllp.co.uk/
Thought: Edwin A Abbott wrote about trouble with Windows in 1884