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

Re: A possible GFDL compromise

On Sat, 20 Sep 2003, Richard Stallman wrote:
> If the GPL were used, it would have to be accompanied by 6 pages
> of additional invariant material.  That is still bigger than the
> reference card.  Do you object to the GPL on these grounds?

There's a critical difference here. The GPL can accompany the
reference card. The invariant material must be in the reference card.
Furthermore, licenses are something that we are generally pragmatic
about, so long as the terms of the license don't unreasonably restrict
where you can put the license.[1]

A similar issue has come up recently on -devel[2] regarding single files
downloaded out of a tarball or a cvs repository. Hopefully it's clear
that making the license available by reference is sufficient to allow
people to download single files from a cvs repository. [EG, we don't
have to append the GPL to every file downloaded.]

> An interpretation of the rules which would lead to rejecting any of
> thee licenses is the wrong interpretation.

I don't think we've yet made a consensus interpretation which rejects
either of these three licenses. If you feel we have, it's likely that
you haven't understood our interpretation correctly, or we haven't
made it clear.

Don Armstrong

1: That is, the license shouldn't require that it be inline with all
files distributed, require itself to be agreed to everytime the
program is run, shown on every program invocation, or some other
ridiculous restriction.
2: http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2003/debian-devel-200309/msg00782.html
If you wish to strive for peace of soul, then believe; if you wish to
be a devotee of truth, then inquire.
 -- Friedrich Nietzsche


Attachment: pgpha3bW1IYKh.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: