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

Re: Request for suggestions of DFSG-free documentation licences



On 03/06/07, Don Armstrong <don@debian.org> wrote:
On Sun, 03 Jun 2007, Jordi Gutierrez Hermoso wrote:
> I have yet to see a practical example of a situation that actually
> happened that justifies Debian's concerns against the GFDL.

The practical example is the fact that we cannot make extracts of
GFDLed documentation even for manpages without including the text of
the GFDL and any invariant sections from the manual.

So you're saying that the current gcc*doc* package in non-free that
places the invariant sections in a separate manpage is violating the
GFDL? Or is placing the invariant pages in a separate manpage not an
extract of GFDL documentation? Seems to me that it *is* an extract and
that supplying both gcc (1) and fsf-funding (7) adheres to the GFDL.
Indeed, this almost the path that OpenBSD has followed too.

There's no practical benefit from removing an insignifcantly small
invariant section from a large document except for a desire to not
distribute FSF propaganda. If you create a small excerpt from a large
GFDL document, you can probably omit the invariant section per Fair
Use policies.

This isn't a real problem. The FSF isn't going to be enacting legal
action against OpenBSD or all the other distros who created a gcc
manpage from the info docs. Debian decided to make it a problem for
itself and for its users.

- Jordi G. H.



Reply to: