Re: Is the GNU FDL a DFSG-free license?
Fedor Zuev wrote:
>On Fri, 22 Aug 2003, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>>Right, and invariant sections can be useful for software. So what?
> Goal of the free software movement, as declared by FSF :-)
>is a completely replace proprietary software world.
> Here you want to state that some useful classes of software
>is inherently doomed to be outside of "free software" definition? I
>right understand you?
No. Although invariant sections in software can be useful, the freedom
to modify the software freely is more useful. As a result, we reject
invariant sections in software.
> But here you talked not about discrimination against using
>the copies of manual, but about discrimination against creating
>specific types of derivative works. This may be reasonable, but
>please note, that in _this_ sense, many of debian/main packages is
>also non-free. Because they not contain (needed) specific
>permissions to create any derivative works which is not computer
>programs or literary works.
This still fails - as a result of the use of invariant sections, I am
unable to use content from one piece of documentation in another piece
of documentation under the same license under certain circumstances. I'm
not aware that this is true of anything we regard as DFSG Free.
Matthew Garrett | email@example.com