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

Re: DFSG#3 (was Re: The draft Position statement on the GFDL)



Raul Miller wrote:

>> > 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.]

Huh.  Thinking about it, we don't.  :-/  Thanks very much for pointing that
out, Raul.

Um, whoever did the debian-legal web page (since my memory is terrible),
would you consider putting this summary on a page linked to it?

I release all copyright interests in that summary to the public domain, so
as to clear up any potential problems there.

-- 
There are none so blind as those who will not see.



Reply to: