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

Re: Clarifying non-free parts of the GNU FDL

Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 28, 2004 at 04:23:01PM -0700, Joe Buck wrote:
>>"These exceptions are granted for derivative works only if those works
>>contain no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover
> 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.

Another possibility is to simply use the GPL, and grant exceptions for
various cases.  Given that an ideal Free documentation license would be
GPL-compatible (if not the GPL itself, which is pretty ideal), and that
any GPL-compatible license must not have any restrictions that are not
in the GPL (so it must consist of some subset of the GPL's conditions),
then that GPL-compatible documentation license could instead be written
as a set of exceptions to the GPL.

For example, if one wanted to permit distributors of physical copies to
refuse to provide source, then that could be written as an exception.
(I personally think it is a good idea to require distributors, both
physical and electronic, to provide source.  However, many people wish
to waive this condition for convenience, and that's fine; the resulting
license would still be free, just less of a copyleft.)

- Josh Triplett

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Reply to: