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

Re: Artistic and LGPL compatibility in jar files



On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 05:06:41 +0100 Andrew Dalke wrote:

[...]
> The best counter example
> is the GFDL->Creative Commons relicensing, when the original GFDL's
> license grant is essentially identical to the GPLs.

Sorry, but I strongly disagree with your statement about the presumed
"essential identity" between the GFDL and the GPL.

The Debian Project has established (through General Resolution
GR-2006-001: http://www.debian.org/vote/2006/vote_001 ) that GFDL'ed
works without invariant material comply with the DFSG, but recognizes
that even such works are *not* free of trouble.
No comparable problematic clauses are found in the GPL.

Moreover, I personally think that even GFDL'ed works without invariant
material *fail* to comply with the DFSG, due to the other problematic
clauses.  If you take a look at the GR outcome, you'll see that my
opinion is shared by a significant minority of Debian developers.


-- 
 New location for my website! Update your bookmarks!
 http://www.inventati.org/frx
..................................................... Francesco Poli .
 GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12  31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4

Attachment: pgpgMULQdm381.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: