Re: Not inherently free, but inherently non-free?
@ 27/04/2004 11:31 : wrote Milan Zamazal :
"PO" == Per Olofsson <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
PO> On Mon, Apr 26, 2004 at 08:10 -0400, Walter Landry wrote:
>> Martin Schulze <email@example.com> wrote: > There seems to be
>> some confusion about whether the GNU FDL renders
>> > every document non-free or only those that include invariant >
>> sections. The result is that... er... I am confused as well...
>> > Could somebody enlighten me?
>> When the GFDL was originally inspected, the conclusion was that
>> the GFDL was free as long as there were no invariant sections
>> (and maybe some other sections). Since then, other problems have
>> been discovered that make all GFDL documents non-free.
PO> I think most of them are summarised here.
PO>  http://people.debian.org/~srivasta/Position_Statement.html
Unfortunately, the draft position statement doesn't explain, which
section of DFSG is violated in such a case and why. I can understand
there are problems with GFDL, but I can't see the direct DFSG violation
if no Invariant Sections etc. are present.
Could somebody explain this, please?
man, have you *read* the thing? Ok, I'll try to summarize the summary :-) ::
Section 2 (VERBATIM COPYING):
1. is not restricted to distribution (non-free for a lot of reasons
discussed in other recent threads here in -legal, the QPL one)
2. restricts redistribution (in a DRM'd medium): DFSG#1
3. outlaws even chmod -r in a normal unix fs
Section 3 (Copying in quantity):
Forces to distribute transparent (source) along with the opaque
(binary) form: forced distribution of goes against the spirit of the
DFSG, altough not its letter. Apply similarities with the Desert Island
And, of course Invariant Sections; which is not of interest in the case,
because it seems that everybody _knows_ why those are non-DFSG-free.