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

Re: A possible GFDL compromise

On Wed, Sep 10, 2003 at 11:57:45AM -0400, Richard Stallman wrote:

> Incompatibility of licenses does cause real obstacles to certain uses,
> and it might be worth changing the GFDL to solve that problem, if it
> can be done without big drawbacks.  I'm going to think about this
> question.  But the same issue arises for free documentation licenses
> that don't have invariant sections, and Debian is not considering
> rejecting them.  It's not valid to use this argument against the GFDL
> alone.

I don't believe anyone here is making the argument that the GPL
incompatibility is grounds for rejecting the GFDL as being non-free; but
certainly GPL-compatibility is something many of us /desire/ for our
documentation licenses, and I think the hope is that you would share
this desire -- particularly since a documentation license that's
compatible with GPLv2 would necessarily also be DFSG-free.

As it stands, there are several terms in the GFDL which appear to each
render the license non-free from Debian's POV, regardless of GPL

Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer

Attachment: pgpEtfENoTiPO.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: