On Fri, Aug 22, 2003 at 05:21:33PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote: > Other than that, you have successfully managed to approximate the > position from which we *started* the GFDL debate, presumably without > actually bothering to research it. In case anyone reading this doubts Andrew's words, I invite them to check out: http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2001/debian-legal-200111/msg00006.html ...and read pretty much all the rest of the -legal traffic for the succeeding month and a half. > Plus, invariant sections are just one of many issues that have been > raised with the GFDL. Replacing one non-free license with another > which is less non-free, but still non-free, is not useful to us. I will add that there was a time when we didn't clearly perceive this. So there is some language (including quite a bit from me personally) in the discussions from 2 years ago that presumes "GNU FDL without Invariant Sections or Cover Texts" is DFSG-free. That is no longer the general opinion, thanks to our attention being drawn to the condition "You may not use technical measures to obstruct or control the reading or further copying of the copies you make or distribute." If "make or" were stricken, and perhaps some clarification added to ensure that secure transport channels between distributor and distributee were not a problem, this particular problem might go away. -- G. Branden Robinson | Build a fire for a man, and he'll Debian GNU/Linux | be warm for a day. Set a man on branden@debian.org | fire, and he'll be warm for the http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | rest of his life. - Terry Pratchett
Attachment:
pgp8Kc1XDW6pV.pgp
Description: PGP signature