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

Re: [STATUS] SURVEY: Is the GNU FDL a DFSG-free license?



#include <hallo.h>
* Branden Robinson [Sun, Aug 24 2003, 03:43:00AM]:

>                                              possible     non-
>                                  developers developers developers
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> option 1 ("no")                     16          3         16
> option 2 ("yes")                     1          0          0
> option 3 ("sometimes")              10          2          4
> option 4 ("none of the above")       1          0          1

As said on IRC, please do not trust these numbers as the primary
indicator. Only people with some real interrest on the issue read the
huge -legal threads and know about this survey. In fact (and IMHO,
of course), most developers are _not_ aware of the fact that the FDL
maybe turned into a non-free license by minimal (and almost invisible)
modifications by the author, and they also are not aware of the need to
review every FDL licensed document to check for its real licensing.

I propose to make a simple change in the DSFG (or document the license
evalutiang method in the policy, whatever): differentiate between 

 - pure FDL (which is obviously free)
 - tainted FDL (with invariant sections)

and make it a _must_ for maintainers to review the documents and turn
the documentation into non-free packages when needed.

MfG,
Eduard.
-- 
Da wir von allem nichts verstehen, reden wir überall mit.

Attachment: pgpaIEIlr3ESv.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: