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

Re: The draft Position statement on the GFDL

On Tue, May 11, 2004 at 03:50:15PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> The DFSG requires that it be possible to make and distribute _all_
> derived works based on the original, as long as such works can be
> distributed under the terms of the original license (ignoring the patch
> clause DFSG4 for the moment).

You've emphasized the word "all" here.  When I read the DFSG, I see
"all" used in the context of people, but not in the context of programs.

I'd love it if you could show me where I'm wrong.

[There's no particular need to assert that I'm wrong -- that's
already been done a number of times today.]

I'll grant that the "spirit of the DFSG" makes some kind of analogous
assertion, but for reasons I've already pointed out I don't think that
this exact assertion is completely accurate.

> With GPLed works, for example, we have
> the right to make any derived work we want, as long as it is under the
> GPL, so the GPL satisfies DFSG3.

"as long as ..."

Sure, it's "all programs except ___" or "not everything".  That's pretty
much my point.

> > I'd want to examine it to determine the kernel interfaces it relies on
> > and write something else which uses those same interfaces.
> > 
> > The key issue, in this example, is the quality of information provided
> > for this task.

> But again, that is a technical concern, not a legal one.  Legally, you
> should have the right to make such a derived work of the documentation.

I believe that relates back to an issue with the GFDL which has a
technical solution.


Reply to: