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

Re: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal



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: pgptsIzDRpuuY.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: