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

Re: OFFLIST Re: More about GFDL

El Domingo 24 Abril 2005 16:58, Evan Prodromou escribió:
> On Sun, 2005-04-24 at 13:40 +0300, Cesar Martinez Izquierdo wrote:
> > Of course I guess the remaining issues are DRM and transparent and opaque
> > copies. While I find these "features" of the license really inconvenient
> > and I wouldn't use this license for my documentation, I fail to see which
> > section of DFSG is infringed by them.
> The anti-DRM clause puts an onerous burden on distribution (DFSG #1) and
> distribution of modified copies (DFSG #3). You can't, in any way,
> distribute GFDL documentation to DRM-only platforms like Adobe E-Book or
> Microsoft Book Reader. (The Sony PS2 and some other console platforms
> also have mandatory DRM).
> While mandatory DRM sucks, we don't have an exception to our guidelines
> for "good causes". A license that prevents any distribution to those
> platforms overreaches in reducing the recipients' freedom to copy and
> share.

Thanks a lot for the detailed analysis. However, I don't fully agree with it.

As far as I understand, the anti-DRM clause doesn't "restrict any party from 
selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software 
distribution containing programs from several different sources".
Any party can still distribute a GFDL document, but only using some kind of 

GPL could be considered to have a similar restriction, as it states: "You may 
not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights 
granted herein." An DRM media can be considered as limiting the 3rd section 
of GPL: "You may copy and distribute the Program [...]".

> The transparent and opaque copies problem is also an unacceptable burden
> on distribution (DFSG#1, #3). Requiring that modifiable "source" code be
> _available_ is OK and specifically called out in DFSG #2; requiring that
> it be _included_ is not.

But it DOESN'T require to include the code, you can still provide it in a 
webpage: "or state in or with each Opaque copy a computer-network location 
from which the general network-using public has access to download using 
public-standard network protocols a complete Transparent copy of the 
Document, free of added material. If you use the latter option, you must take 
reasonably prudent steps, when you begin distribution of Opaque copies in 
quantity, to ensure that this Transparent copy will remain thus accessible at 
the stated location until at least one year after the last time you 
distribute an Opaque copy (directly or through your agents or retailers) of 
that edition to the public."

A year after the last distribution could be considered onerous, but GPL is 
more strict, as you must "Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at 
least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your 
cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete 
machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed 
under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for 
software interchange".

In my opinion they are ugly clauses that should be corrected, but they are 
DSFG-free anyway. (Of course, I understand that somepeole doesn't agree with 



Reply to: