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

Re: Not inherently free, but inherently non-free?

@ 27/04/2004 11:31 : wrote Milan Zamazal :

"PO" == Per Olofsson <pelle@dsv.su.se> writes:

   PO> On Mon, Apr 26, 2004 at 08:10 -0400, Walter Landry wrote:
   >> Martin Schulze <joey@infodrom.org> 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 [1]here.

   PO> [1] 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?

Milan Zamazal

man, have you *read* the thing? Ok, I'll try to summarize the summary :-) ::

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 test.

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.



Reply to: