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

Re: New draft of GFDL and GSFDL

"Nathanael Nerode" <neroden@fastmail.fm> wrote in message [🔎] 20061002234520.GA4470@doctormoo.dyndns.org">news:[🔎] 20061002234520.GA4470@doctormoo.dyndns.org...
Time to see what we would need to change to make it DFSG-free.

On a quick readthrough of the SFDL, it looks like this to me:

* Unlike the GFDL, no Invariant Sections or Cover Texts.
 And they can't be added, so it doesn't break copyleft.
* "Transparent" and "Opaque" definitions look OK this time.
* The anti-DRM clause looks like it's still problematic.  It appears to
 prohibit parallel distribution, because it applies to *any copies*.  It
 should be written to apply to *any recipient*, not any copy.  This is the
 prime point which should be fixed.
* The requirement to include the license in the work, rather than making
it accompany the work, is made much less obnoxious by the "excerpt" clause. * The mandatory "History" section is irritating, but much like a Changelog,
 so probably DFSG-free.
* Acknowledgements and Dedications could be non-free requirements if they
 were abused, but I'm not sure.  I think the requirements are free in this
 draft, because
 - only applies to actual acknowledgements and dedications
 - only applies when the acknowledged/dedicated work is still present
 - may make modifications which preserve the "substance and tone"

In conclusion, on a first glance, I think the only clause I really want
to get changed is the anti-DRM clause.

My quick readthrough pretty much agrees with your yours.

More detailed readthrough of the licence is somewhat problematic because
some parts of the licence are a bit contradictory. I've reported most of them. My notes were made under the name "jsmith" iirc so you should be able to find them.

Reply to: