On Tue, Sep 28, 2004 at 04:23:01PM -0700, Joe Buck wrote: > Side issue #1: even a GFDL with exceptions is still going to be GPL > incompatible. True, but that's also the case for several other > licenses that are considered DFSG-free, so the point isn't relevant > for this discussion. We can recommend dual licensing, but don't need > to require it. It is not a freeness issue, but it is a real reason why developers of GPL software may wish to not use the GFDL as their documentation license. > Side issue #2: people can add invariant sections later. If so, then > those derived works would be non-DFSG-free, but the original work > would still be free. The LGPL has similar issues. However, authors of LGPL software can be assured that contributions received under the terms of the LGPL are also free. Authors of works distributed under the GFDL who have taken special precautions to make their work DFSG-free must also take similar precautions whenever accepting contributions under the same license. > Side issue #3: claims that we should tell people to use the GPL for > documentation. That's a bad idea, as if I sell my GPL-covered printed > book to a friend, and that book was produced from, say, DocBook SGML, I > have to either give the friend the SGML source code, or else give him a > written offer, good for three years, to give him the source code later. > There is good reason for debian-legal to be thinking about licensing > specifically designed for documentation, and the GFDL does have some good > ideas, even if it is seriously flawed. There are reasons why authors of print books would not want to distribute under the GPL, but there are also reasons why authors of software would not want to use the GPL. Debian's purpose is not to ensure that our license recommendations meet the needs of all authors, it is to make authors aware of the available pre-existing license options that meet Debian's requirements for distribution and of the GFDL's problems under the DFSG. > Side issue #4: claims that a license with exceptions would be a > non-copyleft. No; derivative works still have to be licensed on > the same terms. Not really; as long as the license is GFDL, the "same terms" would include the provision that others are allowed to add additional restrictions to derived works, in the form of invariant sections. This is distinctly not copyleft in nature. > I would suggest producing some short, standard exceptions language, > starting from what Nathanael wrote. > I would also suggest adding text like the following: > "These exceptions are granted for derivative works only if those works > contain no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover > Texts." That's a possibility, but without buy-in from the FSF, I don't regard the GFDL as a particularly good starting point for a free documentation license. It seems like the CC licenses might be a better basis. -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature