On Tue, 15 Jul 2003, Florian Weimer wrote: > "Joe Moore" <joemoore@iegrec.org> writes: > > Unless the FSF is the sole copyright holder of the relevant GFDL document, > > their interpretation of the license is irrelevant. > Then why do we discuss at all? The court system is the interpretation that matters. However, until we actually get a few court decisions regarding (and interpreting) the license, we're left with our reading and understanding of it. The FSF folks occasionally are more lenient with their interpretation of licenses than a very strict reading would indicate. In cases where they are the sole copyright holder, that's acceptable, especially in areas where the license is less than clear. Yet, if there is someone else holding the license, without a statement from them regarding its interpretation, we have to read the license strictly, and conservatively. [In many cases the FSF says to effect: "Well, the license may or may not preclude this, but we feel that it's resonable for you to do X, Y and Z." In lieu of such a statement, we should probably assume that we cannot do X, Y, and Z, even if it would make such a license non-free.] Don Armstrong -- Clothes make the man. Naked people have little or no influence on society. -- Mark Twain http://www.donarmstrong.com http://www.anylevel.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu
Attachment:
pgpdORyMNbbWa.pgp
Description: PGP signature