On Tue, Sep 09, 2003 at 01:12:07PM +0200, Mathieu Roy wrote: > Keith Dunwoody <kstephen@interchange.ubc.ca> a tapoté : > > Mathieu Roy wrote: > > > It seems weird to me. Someone said that GFLed documentation without > > > invariant sections can be made non-free if someone getting a copy of > > > the documentation add invariant sections. > > > What does it change? Do we consider BSD software as non-free software > > > because they do not forbid a software to become (wholy) "invariant"? > > > > > > > Please review the archive. GFDL is non-free even without invariant > > sections, due to the anti-DMCA clause. > This has been discussed recently and it was so not clear. Indeed, most license problems are precisely the result of things *not* being clear between the letter and the intent, leaving open the possibility of a judge being the one to clarify the letter. It was sufficiently unclear that RMS indicated he would request clarification of that part of the license from the lawyers. -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
Attachment:
pgp2UOoE1tgr9.pgp
Description: PGP signature