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

Re: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal

Hash: SHA1


On Friday 19 September 2003 23:57, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
> Mathieu Roy <yeupou@gnu.org> writes:
> > And, finally, if I correctly understood this page, if I get an
> > official Debian CD, with this Logo as cover, I'm not able to provide
> > a copy of this official Debian CD unless I completely follow a process
> > documented at www.debian.org.
> I forgot one thing: you can copy the data on the CD, but not the
> packaging art.  The packaging art is clearly not software -- it's not
> even digital -- so this is much less of an issue.

excuse me for charging into this discussion, but I think there is a bit more 
to it. I would count packaging art among software. However, its license, 
although non-free, is only reenforcing something that brand protection should 
already be taking care of.  This legal construction is probably a bit 
awkward. Therefore, in an ideal world I would prefer the logo to have a free 
license but strong brand protection.

A similar argument applies to licenses themselves, I believe. You could argue 
that it is unfortunate that the GPL is not GPL'd itself. But for each 
individual work distributed under the GPL this makes hardly any difference -- 
you couldn't change the license text anyway, even if it was free, because you 
have to state the correct license conditions somewhere. 

In the case of invariant sections however, there is no other reason for their 
immutability than the GFDL's conditions.


(Do not take this as legal advice)
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux)


Reply to: