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

Re: {SPAM} Question about GFDL licensed works

Em Dom, 2006-02-12 às 09:22 -0600, Manoj Srivastava escreveu:
>         If people who sponsored the second amendment can explain to me
>  why something that prevents me from using SELinux when all I am doing
>  is unpack and copy make sources is deemed free, I would be, err,
>  grateful.

Hmmm... I still didn't buy this argument... But it has been argued that
it is not the intent of this license clause and that, because of that,
it would not be enforceable, as, even the text not saying that, some
other references around are sufficient to disable this type of
enforcement of the license.

I don't know where are these references (probably RMS comments), but, as
we agree it is a bug in the license, it's quite possible that such text
exists (there is a message from RMS saying he never thought this could
be applied with GFDL terms).

I'm not sure this is acceptable, but:
1) This proposal recognizes that the referred application of such
restriction is, indeed, non-free.
2) but also says this application is not what the license wants to say
and is not enforceable because of that (using other references to
clarify that).

The same thing could be applied to the transparent copies problem...

As I said before, I still didn't buy this argument, but I have to admit
it has some logic...


Reply to: