Re: Is the GNU FDL a DFSG-free license?
Fedor Zuev wrote:
> There, IMHO, is a subtle difference between a creating
>derivative work, and using a part of work in the completely
>unrelated other work. But you, of course, may disagree. I just reply
>to the words, and not try to clairvoyant a thoughts.
There may well be. It remains a useful freedom.
> Heh. A very carefully crafted example. One step left or
>right and you will not get your example.
That's sort of the point.
>When you try to apply license outside of its scope you should expect
>to receive funny results. GFDL has a very narrow scope. It is bad.
>But it is different problem.
The GFDL may only be intended for documentation and the like, but if I
want to use sections of material released under it elsewhere I'm obliged
to use it. As has been pointed out, on occasion the result of this is
that I can't release a combination of GFDL material under the GFDL,
which means I can't release it at all. This is plainly stupid. From a
pragmatic point of view, even if I could do so the combination of
invarient sections I may be forced to distribute may render the result
useless. It's a bad license, and it's a non-Free license.
--
Matthew Garrett | mjg59-chiark.mail.debian.legal@srcf.ucam.org
Reply to: