Re: Request for suggestions of DFSG-free documentation licences
On 05/06/07, MJ Ray <mjr@phonecoop.coop> wrote:
> Small excerpts (e.g. an Emacs reference card from the Emacs info docs)
> are probably covered under Fair Use. [...]
This is England calling.
Would the FSF have to sue under US law or UK law an offender in the
UK? I'm genuinely ignorant about this issue.
poison pill invariant sections
Huh? Poison pill?
and inability to fix some sections.
What do you want to fix? The reasons for why free software needs free
documentation or would you like to fix the suggestions on how to give
funds to the FSF? You think you know better than the FSF what funds
the FSF needs?
Since invariant sections can't be about technical matters, I really
fail to see what non-technical aspects could possibly need to be
"fixed".
> [...] Debian
> really is the odd distro out here by considering GFDL docs non-free.
Not even RMS or the FSF calls the FDL a Free Software licence.
Of course the FSF doesn't consider the GFDL a free software licence.
That's why it recommends releasing any substantial amount of code from
a GFDLed doc under the GPL. I wouldn't call the GFDL a free software
licence; it isn't a software licence at all. But it's Debian who
insists on calling Wikipedia a software distributor (and I'm not
referring to Wikimedia, I'm referring to Wikipedia's content). Since
Debian wants to call every bitstream "software", then it feels like it
can apply the DFSG to every bitstream.
Software simply doesn't need the same freedoms as documentation, but
Debian disagrees. Perhaps it wants to modify the results of the
MOTIVATION article in the Emacs distribution in hopes of altering
reality by altering the findings of the article (yes, I'm trolling,
sorry, but the whole GFDL thing and Debian really gets my knickers in
a twist).
non-free-software aspects of FDL and was just yanking our chain.
Debian calling the GFDL "non-free" reminds me so much of the BSD
zealots calling the GPL "non-free". This really is the stuff of
flamewars (such as this one).
- Jordi G. H.
Reply to: