Re: Is the GNU FDL a DFSG-free license?
On Mon, 25 Aug 2003, Josselin Mouette wrote:
>> >Le lun 25/08/2003 ? 09:22, Fedor Zuev a ?crit :
>> >> 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.
>>
>> >No, it is exactly one of the problems.
>>
>> Every free license have its scope of applicability, outside
>> of which it may turn to non-free license. For example, if you
>> license a music phonorecord under GPL, you get pretty non-free
>> phonorecord with funny license. And you can begin from GPL-covered
>> literary work.
>*shrug* This would be non-free? Wow.
Of course. You did not know? It is a completely your
problem.
>BTW, don't even try to justify this statement, you have already
>proved several times you are able to say any sort of crap without
>foundation in this discussion.
Why I should justify every trivial thing? You are not aware?
Read something.
For example
http://www.mail-archive.com/linart@li.org/msg00875.html
describes several most obvious problems with GPL-on-phonorecord.
(No, I do not know anything about the author. I just google this
page five minutes ago). And much more problems unexplained.
>> Yes, I would understand your points. GFDL has too narrow
>> scope for.....
>>
>> But, please, can you take one point at a time?
>>
>> You talk about real dangers for users from GFDL?
>We have been talking about dangers for users FROM THE BEGINNING OF
>THIS DISCUSSION. I suggest you read it again. And if you don't
>understand it, read it once again. This may be needed for stubborn
>minds.
>> Or you talk about Eternal Freedom?
>We are talking about freedom for our users *today*, not in 70 years.
Well. Therefore we shall put aside all that blathering about
"You shall not care about usability of freedom, just demand it!" in
style of Joe Wreschnig (heh-heh-heh, he does not hear me, anyway).
Then, you have any evidence, that there _real_, not only
imaginable harm for the users from self-incompatibility of GFDL in
present or in foreseeable future?
Please note, that:
1) This incompatibility affects _only_ historical
monographs, because "relationship of the publishers or authors of
the Document to the Document's overall subject" of one document may
"fall directly within overall subject" of another document only for
historical monographs about free software. GFDL is _not_ create many
random points of self-incompatibility there and there, it contain
only _one_ such point.
2) It is not usual behavior for the historians to quote a
large portions of published manuals in their own works.
3) There is not, and, probably, will not any "Free
Historical Science Movement". Scientists already have so-called
academic freedom, and very rarely wants more. Whe can
expect DFSG-free historical works only as accidental gifts, or as
jokes.
Therefore, we can expect no more than one such collision in
the current century (If _you_ write such monograph to prove your
point :-).
>> What _exactly_ wrong with DFSG? DFSG does not define scope
>> in which works should be freely modifiable. It can't be universal
>> scope because there is no licenses, which free in the universal
>> scope.
>Free licenses don't discriminate against scope, that is the point.
Do you know any such license?
Reply to: