On Thu, 14 Dec 2006 23:42:05 +0000 (GMT) MJ Ray wrote: > Francesco Poli <frx@firenze.linux.it> > > On Wed, 13 Dec 2006 09:22:22 +0000 (GMT) MJ Ray wrote: > > > Francesco Poli <frx@firenze.linux.it> wrote: > > > > "Allows non-free derivs" ? > > > > > > That's probably accurate too, yes. > > > > OK, I'm going to use that tagline for my comments (as soon as I > > submit them to the FSF). > > Belatedly, I remember the problem with that: FSF has some different > but undefined interpretation of 'free' for documentation, which is why > they call it the Free Documentation License with a straight face. You yourself admit that this interpretation is undefined. AFAICT, the FSF has a secret undisclosed theory on the definition of "Free Documentation": it starts in a manner similar to the definition of Free Software and then goes on with unbacked arguments about "differences" between software (by which the FSF actually means "programs" and nothing else) and documentation. The final result is the GFDL text we all know, which is claimed to be suitable for releasing "Free Documentation". As far as publicly disclosed information is concerned, it seems that the theory is, more or less, that the GFDL is, *by definition*, a license suitable for "Free Documentation". I obviously avoided following these theories when I drafted my analysis: otherwise, I would have concluded that everything is fine, that the GFDL is a perfect license and hooray for the FSF! ;-) err, no, actually :-( I instead drafted my analysis on the basis of my understanding of what is Free Software. > > Allows modified versions to be more restricted? It's really too long as a tagline, IMHO. What about "You can add restrictions" ? -- But it is also tradition that times *must* and always do change, my friend. -- from _Coming to America_ ..................................................... Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4
Attachment:
pgpVxO9sTQJIw.pgp
Description: PGP signature