Re: `free' in GNU and DSFG?
Please see the threads that led to
<http://www.debian.org/vote/2006/vote_001> for exhaustive discussion
about the GFDL vs. the DFSG.
On 08/06/12 16:34, Christofer C. Bell wrote:
> I cannot think of a case where someone
> modifying the document would, when acting in a good faith manner, want
> to alter this text.
That would be fine if we (either Debian when redistributing the
document, or someone wanting to alter the document later) could delete
them - but clause 4L, and the first paragraph of section 5, forbid that.
> would a
> GFDL document that has no invariant sections be considered Free under
> the current Debian guidelines?
According to the General Resolution at
<http://www.debian.org/vote/2006/vote_001>, yes. The GNU Libtool manual
in libtool-doc is one example of a GFDL-with-no-invariant-sections
document in main.
(The GR was not unanimous - a significant number of Debian members would
have preferred for libtool-doc to be excluded from main too.)
> They have 4 licenses, all of which seem to serve a unique and
> necessary role: GPL, LGPL, AGPL, and GFDL.
The major reason I never want to put anything I write under the GFDL is
that it has annoying practical consequences.
The AGPL, GPL and LGPL (of the same version) are copyleft licenses with
varying terms, but form a chain of compatible licenses in which you can
combine works under any pair of those licenses, and put the result under
the more restrictive license.
The GFDL and GPL are mutually-incompatible copyleft licenses (each
includes restrictions that the other does not), so you can't combine
parts of a GPL'd work with parts of a GFDL'd work, under any license,
unless you are the sole copyright holder on both. That's fine for GNU
(the sole copyright holder on GNU projects, via copyright assignment),
but an obstacle for the rest of the world.
S
Reply to: