Re: GR proposal: GFDL with no Invariant Sections is free
Margarita Manterola <margamanterola@gmail.com> wrote:
> What would be the point of your proposal? I mean, if this proposal
> won, it would be exactly the same as if the "no GFDL in main at all"
> proposal won. So, why have yet another option?
Peter Samuelson <peter@p12n.org> wrote:
> The point is to explain to the world what is wrong with the GFDL. If
> someone still wants to use it, on works which are not yet written, or
> whose license can still be changed (all the copyright holders are still
> around and can agree on this), Nathaniel's option gives clear steps
> for what they need to do.
Yes, that was the only point of it.
*However*, I withdraw my proposal, because I have realized that we never
worked out whether the "Acknowledgements and Dedications" requirements in
the GFDL were free restrictions or not. (These restrictions are significantly
weaker restrictions than the other, non-free restrictions; but they're
significantly stronger restrictions than similar ones in any determined-free
license.) Accordingly, my proposal may not actually represent consensus
views.
So don't propose it as an alternative -- unless you're sure what you want to
do about the "Acknowledgements and Dedications" business, which would
hopefully involve at least one more round of discussion on debian-legal.
Reply to: