[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: pgp2UOoE1tgr9.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: