Re: Should our documentation be free? (Was Re: Inconsistencies in our approach)
Don Armstrong <don@donarmstrong.com> schrieb/wrote:
> I'd gather that most of -legal isn't worried about the copyright
> statement, license, or author's statement (which is the same thing as
> the copyright statement) being immutable. Most of those can't be
> modified under the applicable copyright law and construed as the
> original anyway.
> What we are worried about is the addition of odious requirements for
> keeping sections of documents which are not related to the above...
Maybe that's the solution to the GFDL problem: Allow documents that come
under a GFDL licence if the only immutable parts are licence texts or
author statements.
The GFDL is not a full licence, it's a licence template, which has to be
filled with definitions of "invariant sections" and "cover texts" (this
is why I used "GFDL licence" instead of "GFDL"). If the only texts that
are immutable are licence texts, author statements, etc., the GFDL-based
licence can be considered free (similar to software licences that don't
allow to change licence texts either).
Of course, someone can add another invariant section to the manual. But
this is actually a licence change, possibly making the new version of
the manual non-free (although it still uses the GFDL as a template for
its licence). This problem, however, exists in many free software
licences such as the BSD licence, etc.
Claus
--
http://www.faerber.muc.de
Reply to: