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

Re: Interpreting the GFDL GR

Nathanael Nerode wrote:

I do not think that the GR said that Debian should try to guess the
licensor's meaning when determining *distributability*.  That seems even
more dangerous.  Doing so when interpreting the DFSG simply opens up
Debian's users to liability if they ASSume that a package in main is free. But doing so when determining distributability opens up Debian to direct,
primary liability.

If that's what the developers meant, they should have said so.
I'm sorry I didn't notice this earlier, before the GRs; the "hmm, wait,
isn't ftpmaster download access restricted?" moment didn't come into my
head until today.

Choice 1 said explicitely that Debian would continue to ship GFDL in its non-free section. So that advocators of choice 1 advocate a vote which would oblige Debian to violate copyright (obviously your "pratical" problem would remain the same if GFDL would be moved in the non-free section).

You are in fact showing the absurdity of such litteral reading. Obviously GFDL simply means that you cannot prevent a user who have received a copy of a GFDL to exercice his rights.


Reply to: