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

Re: (DRAFT) FAQ on documentation licensing

On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 10:15:25 +0200 Jacobo Tarrio wrote:

> O Xoves, 14 de Abril de 2005 ás 01:22:56 +0200, Francesco Poli
> escribía:
> > >  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."
>  Actually, it would be a mix of both: "if a particular work, with its
> copyright license, is free or not".

Well, not really.
Copyright ones are not the only issues that matter when we check whether
a work is DFSG-free.
The work could fail to grant the freedoms we value for other reasons
(actively enforced software patents, too restrictive trademarks, and so

I repropose "if a particular /work/ is free or not."

> > [...] they fail to see the difference between creating a derivative
> > work and modifying the work itself [...]
>  I'll add "; it just creates a new work, derivative of the original
>  RFC" to
> the sentence, since the "derivative work" bit is important :-)

It seems like a good clarification...

> > [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 is even a better example than mine. I'll change mine to this
>  (the old
> one is kept saved in the page's [1] history).

Wow!  :)

    :-(   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: pgpF8cPZkOHO5.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: