On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 16:14:23 +0200 Jacobo Tarrio wrote: > This should be useful for people who ask about the GFDL, documentation > licensing guidelines, etc. Thanks for doing this job! :) > > Comments, additions, removals, rewordings are allowed and requested. There > are no invariant parts ;-) Of course! ;-) ROTFL! > > When/if it becomes more or less stable, it would be useful for the DFSG > FAQ, I think... I agree. [...] > A: The DFSG is a set of minimum criteria that are taken into account > when > deciding if a particular copyright license is free or not. I would prefer "if a particular /work/ is free or not." [...] > A: See the previous question. Even if it doesn't convince you or you > can > live with the ambiguity described there, the existence of different > DFSG and DFDG would mean that there are some freedoms that are > necessary for programs but are irrelevant for documents, and vice > versa, as will be exemplified in the following questions. I would add "Nobody has yet provided a convincing rationale to explain *why* programs and documents should need a different minimum set of freedoms. The Debian project claims that the same freedoms are important for both programs and documents." > Q: The ability to keep certain parts of a document is essential for > some > kinds of document. For example, RFC or other standards documents > should not be modifiable. Or a piece may contain the author's opinion > on something, and nobody should be allowed to represent the author's > position by modifying that piece. s/represent/misrepresent/ > > A: First, standards documents should be modifiable: that's how old > standards are improved and new standards are made. Modifying a copy of > a standards document, such as a RFC, does not modify the RFC itself. [Comment] I agree particularly on this and would like to point out that it's exactly where many people fail to understand our position: they fail to see the difference between creating a derivative work and modifying the work itself (and sometimes even modifying the author's opinions! Hey! How could I do that? I have no hypnotic powers! ;-) > > If what's really intended is to stop someone from passing a modified > document as the original, other means can be used, such as trademark > laws or slander/libel laws already existing in most jurisdictions. Perhaps it's better avoiding recommending trademarks or otherwise we should be prepared to see more and more Mozilla-like mess in the future... :-( [...] > It is the same situation in a program. For example, if the license of > a > "kill all spiders" game forbade to make versions with cats instead of > spiders (because the authors love cats while they loathe spiders), > this license would be considered non-free, even when it would be > protecting the authors' own opinions. [Comment] Good example. My favorite one is the following: if the license of a MUA forbade to add HTML mail support (because the authors are philosophically against HTML mail), this license would be considered non-free, even when it would be protecting the authors' own opinions. -- :-( This Universe is buggy! Where's the Creator's BTS? ;-) ...................................................................... Francesco Poli GnuPG Key ID = DD6DFCF4 Key fingerprint = C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4
Attachment:
pgpgLBsNUd05X.pgp
Description: PGP signature