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

Re: A WDL.

On Thu, 2003-09-11 at 06:26, Wouter Verhelst wrote:

> A "Secondary Section" is a named appendix or a front-matter section of
> the Document that deals exclusively with the relationship of the
> publishers or authors of the Document to the Document's overall
> subject (or to related matters) and contains nothing that could fall
> directly within that overall subject.

I think you should address what happens if a document undergoes subject
creep such that what was formerly a secondary section no longer is.

> The "Opiniated Sections" are certain Secondary Sections which are

I agree with others that "Opinion" or "Editorial" would be a better

> A "Transparent" copy of the Document means a machine-readable copy,
> represented in a format whose specification is available to the
> general public,

Some formats aren't well-specified, yet should still be usable. HTML _as
practiced_, for example.

Also, what does it mean for a specification to be available to the
general public? It must be freely downloadable? It must be under a
license no more restrictive than this one? It must be available for no
more than $200?

AFAIK, the PDF spec is only available for a price. Same with the ASCII
and Unicode specs.

> for which an editor can be implemented by anyone,
> without requiring an implementer to have patent or other licenses to
> that format.

Perhaps a better wording would be "can be implemented without requiring
patent or other licenses" Though I think we might want to allow formats
where there are patents, but the patent holder makes the patent
available for royalty-free use by the public for any purpose (i.e.,
defensive patents)
> 2. Verbatim copying
> You may not put
> the document on any medium intended for general redistribution whose
> technical specifications make it impossible, or mostly so, to make
> unlimited copies of the document to another medium.

I can't put the document in an embedded device? I suggest adding
something along the lines of "unless you also provide a medium with the
same document in easily copyable form."

> You must use the Cover Texts as stated in the license notice, putting
> Front-Cover Texts on the front cover, and Back-Cover Texts on the back
> cover.

I don't think invariant front-cover and back-cover texts are DFSG free.

> Both covers must also clearly and legibly identify you as the
> publisher of these copies.


> The front cover must present the full title
> with all words of the title equally prominent and visible. 

Why must all words of the title be "equally prominent and visible"? It
seems common practice in publishing to makes words like "and" smaller
and less prominent.

> If the required texts for either cover are too voluminous to fit
> legibly, you should put the first ones listed (as many as fit
> reasonably) on the actual cover, and continue the rest onto adjacent
> pages.

I dare say this is a pretty good sign the license isn't free...

> If you publish or distribute Opaque copies of the Document,

The GFDL only made a lot of this apply for 100 copies or more. I think
that may be a good idea, but I don't think it changes the freeness of
the license.

> download using public-standard network protocols a complete

"public-standard network protocols" ?
> G. Preserve in that license notice the full list of required Cover
> Texts given in the Document's license notice.


> K. For any section Entitled "Acknowledgements" or "Dedications",
> Preserve the Title of the section, and preserve in the section all the
> substance and tone of each of the contributor acknowledgements and/or
> dedications given therein. You may remove them from the Document
> itself, provided that you distribute them along with the Document; and
> if the Document is part of a collection of other documents, you must
> clarify that these sections refer to this Document, not to others.

More invariant sections.

> 10. Opiniated Sections.
> A document can contain any number of Opiniated Sections. An Opiniated
> Section should be preceded by the phrase "This is an Opiniated
> Section", and should be followed by the phrase "This was an Opiniated
> Section".

Glad it stops being opiniated after I finish reading it :-)

> You are allowed to change, synthesize, or otherwise modify an
> Opiniated Section. Should you choose to do so, you must replace the
> marking that precedes the Opiniated Section by "This is a modified
> Opiniated Section, altered by <your name>. The original, unmodified
> Opiniated Section can be found at ", followed by a computer-network
> If you modify an already modified Opiniated Section, you must add a
> statement under the marking that precedes the Opiniated Section, and
> any other such statements (if any), saying, "It has been subsequently
> altered by <your name>. A version without these modifications can be
> found at ", followed by a publicly-accessible computer-network

Don't we already have a history section? Is there any reason to add yet
another, above and below each opinion section?

> You are allowed to completely remove an Opiniated Section. Should you
> choose to do so, you must make sure the final, modified Document
> contains the phrase "The original, unmodified Document contained an
> Opiniated Section, which handled about ", a short description of what
> the Opiniated Section was about, followed by "and has been removed in
> this version. You can find this Opiniated Section at ", followed by a

Can we allow phrases to the effect of that? For example, a natural place
to put this would be the history section; and then that wording would be
quite redundant.

If we can reduce both of these to a requirement to keep an accurate
change log in the history section, I think I can live with that.

> In contrast to the terms as specified in section 3, for the purpose of
> the messages preceding, following, or replacing modified or removed
> Opiniated Sections, you are not allowed to point to a
> publicly-accessible computer-network location which is not under your
> control.

Why not? A natural place to point would be the opinion section author's
copy of that work. I think this requirement pushes it over the edge,
such that it is no longer free.

> In Section 4O, I have added the possibility to drop any Warranty
> Disclaimers provided warranty is provided by a publisher.

Not sure if this is a good idea or not. Assumabl, the FSF had a good
legal reason for those disclaimers. In particular, it might be possible
to go after the authors of the work if they are removed. No idea.

[There are some other minor bugs, like places where the wording isn't
clear, but oh well.]

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Reply to: