DFSG#3 (was Re: The draft Position statement on the GFDL)
> > What it actually says isn't enough for our purposes -- you could say
> > it's too tolerant of licensing problems.
On Fri, May 14, 2004 at 05:59:25PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> OK. I would interpret it as meaning "must allow most modifications and
> derived works".
> > Unfortunately, the way that
> > we express how it's interpreted is also inadequate -- what we say we do
> > is actually less tolerant than what we actually implement.
> What we say we do is something like this:
> * prohibit most substantive restrictions on the content of derived works
> * allow restrictions which appear not to be substantive
> * allow requirements which prohibit things which would be illegal even if
> the original work were in the public domain
> * allow requirements that certain things accompany the distribution of the
> derived work, but not (in general) requirements that those things be *in*
> the derived work.
> * allow requirements that certain accurate legal notices be present in the
> derived work, provided that they don't substantively obstruct the ability
> to make the derived work serve whatever purpose you want
> * allow requirements that certain attributions be present in the derived
> work, provided that they don't substantively obstruct the ability to make
> the derived work serve whatever purpose you want
> Does that sound reasonable?
That seems like very good coverage of this issue.
Do we say this somewhere? [I've seen other people say things which would
contradict these points, and would like to have something to refer to
in the future.]