On Sat, Apr 22, 2006 at 06:40:11AM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote: > > The only change I made to it was substituting "FreeBSD Documentation > > Project" for "Debian Project". > > You've sent two totally different licenses to the list so far; I was > refering specifically to the license which was attached to the message > which I responded to. It should be clear why that particular license > is not GPL compatible. The first one was much discussed. The second one was my proposed version based on that discussion (unfortunately, I did not attach it when I should have done it) > Indeed, neither of the two licenses you've sent are just s/FreeBSD > Documentation/Debian/g; replacements... each of them have contained > other changes. Making modifications to an existing license has many of > the same pitfalls that drafting a totally new license does, and it's > not something that we want to get in the business of doing.[1] Please review the changes to the *second* proposal: 1- s/FreeBSD/Debian/ 2- remove SGML as the sources, since it does not apply to all our documentation and, moreover, does not apply to the website (sources are mostly WML) 3- add HTML as an output 4- remove the limitation of having the license text in the first lines of the file 5- add a reference to translations (could be considered a "modification" to the source, however they are not in international IP law) 2 and 3 are *technical* changes to notes, they do not affect the license at all. 4 was requested in this list and I do agree that is necessary. 5 was added on my behalf and has no real impact on the license since, in its absence, a translation would be considered a "modification" of the source. I don't believe any of these changes introduces any new pitfalls, quite the contrary, it removes them. > If this is something that you're woried about, you can just replace > software with work. Indeed, the GPLv3 does this because there's no > point in generating confusion amoung people who think that software > means programs instead of meaning information that is represented in a > digital fashion. But frankly, it really makes no difference. Everyone > understands what you're supposed to do when you've got a GPLed work; > you just include the prefered form for modification. With an MITed > work there should be no confusion at all. There is no MITed "work" license, the MIT license explicitly mentions software too. As for GPLv3, I will not get into details, but I rather not use that license. > The FreeBSD documentation license is not compatible with the GPL > because it has a restriction on modification which the GPL itself does > not contain. It explicitely requires you to include the license as the > first lines of the file, unmodified, instead of including them in an > appropriate location. And that's precisely what I changed in my second proposal (which should have been attached to Message-ID: <[🔎] 20060419233743.GA4068@javifsp.no-ip.org>) Regards Javier
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature