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

Re: GFDL freedoms

> http://people.debian.org/~willy/dfdocg-0.4.txt

This inherits its definition of Transparent from the FDL, but
some DDs consider that awkward. Is there a better one?

"Integrity of The Author's Document" looks like it might
permit practically unmodifiable documents, as "certain ways"
is very vague. This conflicts with "Derived Works" by denying
some modifications (and do most understand that as "permit
all reasonable modifications"?) and it also contradicts
with "No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor" because no
topic of a secondary section can used as the main purpose.

"Example Licenses" lists several which are incompatible. Is the
intention to edit the guidelines or request licence updates?

Regarding your "Issues", note that only the DFSG's
explanations/examples use the word "programs". If you did
introduce a simple word change, I think it would be pretty
likely to succeed but there would be accusations about
"editorial changes" again.

On another issue, these fdocg are still incompatible with
the anti-DRM parts of FDL and not entirely clear about the
post-download availability problem.

Finally, the hard part - when to use fdocg and when to use
DFSG - doesn't seem to be covered at all yet.

Tactically, I would reject adopting this. Even if it is possible,
I do not think it is good for one party in a dispute to draft
a compromise alone. Work seems to be underway with CC (thanks
Evan and others!) but that dispute is minor compared to FDL.

Personally, I would be unhappy with allowing licensors greater
restrictions on modification than at present, especially when
they look like they can be used to break other guidelines.


Reply to: