On Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 12:33:22PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: > * Branden Robinson: > > > In the copyright holder's understanding, re-imposition of the > > requirements of sections 2a and and 2c by those creating a derivative > > work is not allowed, since those restrictions never attached to this > > work; see section 6. This work can be combined with another work licensed > > under the GNU General Public License, version 2, but any section 2a and > > 2c restrictions on the resulting work would only attach only due to the > > copyright license on the work(s) with which this work is combined and for > > which those restrictions are in force. > > Isn't this at least a bit self-contradicting? I don't think so. (Hint: If you want to raise an objection, raise one. "Doesn't this suck?" doesn't really cut it.) > Why produce such a mess in the first place? Well, first things first. What problem(s) do you think there would be in licensing the work in question[1] under the straight GNU GPL? What applicability do you suggest clause 2c) has to things that can't "read commands interactively when run", because it's not a program? > Your license doesn't give me permission to publicly perform the work, > or to broadcast it. True enough. Neither does the GNU GPL. Why is this not a problem for the GNU GPL? > It doesn't deal with moral rights at all (which > are quite important in some jurisdictions when it comes to > non-programs). True enough. Neither does the GNU GPL. Why is this not a problem for the GNU GPL? > It doesn't special-case distribution of printed copies, which means that > the GPL provisions apply. These provisions pretty much rule out > small-scaleprinting and redistribution because of the "valid for at least > three years" rule. True enough. Neither does the GNU GPL. Why is this not a problem for the GNU GPL? > However, the license does clarify what constitutes source code, but this > might also be a further restriction in the GPL sense, making the license > incompatible with the GPL. What's your reasoning? If someone transforms the document into an executable program, they have likely changed the preferred form of modification for the work. Nothing in the GNU GPL forbids them from doing so, and my clarification doesn't either. > All in all, I don't think this is a particularly good license for > documentation, it's just yet another GPL variant. It's supposed to be a GPL variant. It's also supposed to be compatible with the GPL. [1] http://necrotic.deadbeast.net/xsf/XFree86/trunk/debian/local/FAQ.xhtml -- G. Branden Robinson | What cause deserves following if Debian GNU/Linux | its adherents must bury their branden@debian.org | opposition with lies? http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- Noel O'Connor
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature