Re: Is the GNU FDL a DFSG-free license?
On Mon, 25 Aug 2003, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>>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.
There are any real cases? Or, maybe, real (existed
nowadays, not hypotheticaly possible in the future) ground for such
cases? There a many DFSG-compliant free historical manuscripts?
Overgeneralization is not always good. Worrying about a
possible problems in the far future instead of problems existed now
in not nessesaryly involve promotion of freedom.