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

Re: OFFLIST Re: More about GFDL

Cesar Martinez Izquierdo <listas@ono.com> wrote:
> As far as I understand, the anti-DRM clause doesn't "restrict any party from=20
> 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=
> media.

You write that it doesn't restrict it, but we can only use certain media?
I consider that a significant restriction.

Personally, I think anti-DRM sections also discriminate against
fields of endeavour. Namely, the viewing of a document covered
by the FDL on a viewer which only has DRM-enabled media (PS2?),
even if the distribution also includes non-DRM-covered copies.

Of course, neither of these are a practical problem for debian,
so FDL-covered works can still go into non-free.

> GPL could be considered to have a similar restriction, as it states: "You m=
> ay=20
> not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the righ=
> ts=20
> granted herein." An DRM media can be considered as limiting the 3rd section=
> of GPL: "You may copy and distribute the Program [...]".

Maybe a GPL-covered distribution should include a non-DRM copy, or
at least an offer to provide one?

> [...] If you use the latter option, you must take=20
> reasonably prudent steps, when you begin distribution of Opaque copies in=20
> quantity, to ensure that this Transparent copy will remain thus accessible =

That's actually a pretty big lawyerbomb, IMO.

> 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=20
> least three years, [...]

Note that debian doesn't use that option itself, as far as I know.

> 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 wit=
> h=20 me).

I think you're being a bit extreme in your treatment of the guidelines.
You can't say that anything which doesn't clearly break them is following
them, really. FDL doesn't clearly follow them. That's the main problem.
(The insincere consultation, railroading of objectors and filibustering
(whether intentional or not) probably hasn't helped, though.)

My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct

Reply to: