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

Re: A possible GFDL compromise

O Domingo, 24 de Agosto de 2003 ás 19:36:20 -0500, Joe Wreschnig escribía:

> How about the GPL v2? "The source code for a work means the preferred
> form of the work for making modifications to it"; binary or object code
> is anything that is not source. I don't see the problem in applying this
> standard all software (meaning programs and documentation).

 Anyway, that wasn't my point.

 First: why have to deal with "source code" or "the preferred form for
modification" when, for some of the rights the GFDL gives, these things are
not even necessary? For example, to translate a document you don't really
need modifiable source code: you only need to be able to read the original

 Second: the "don't use technical measures to limit further copying" clause
is "difficult" because it tries to limit a mechanism, not an intention. What
is someone who "uses technnical measures to limit further copying" trying to
do? Impede that the recipient of the work redistributes new copies. Well,
then why isn't there a clause saying "you must not limit the recipient's
ability to make and distribute new copies of this document"?

 Third: if we were to enumerate each and every right in the license, it
would be much longer and more complex (and imagine if we started combining
the rights "you must not limit the recipient's ability to make and
distribute new copies of excerpted versions of this document"). Thus, a
single, simple clause I proposed: "if the format or physical medium this
work is distributed in limits the recipient's ability to exercise the rights
given by this license, access to a copy of this work in a format or physical
medium that allows for the exercise of the rights must be provided".

 That would mean -- if you want to modify it and cannot because you don't use
Word, you have the right to obtain from your distributor a plain text copy.



Reply to: