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

Re: {SPAM} Question about GFDL licensed works

On 13 Feb 2006, Daniel Ruoso uttered the following:

> 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.

        On what basis are we asserting thatthis is not the intent of
 the copyright holder? Since thisd is indeed what the license text
 states. Are we even sure that that license authors tink it is a bug?
 Can I have some references, please? And what bearing does the license
 author have on this issue, anyway, since each copyright holder may
 disagree, and given what the license says now is what they have put
 their work out under?

        Unless the copyright owner of the work gives us explicit
 permission, this argument is nothing better than trying to
 rationalize copyright violations with vague statements like, "Oh, my
 special telepathy sense tells me they did nt mean that"...

> 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...

        What logic? Can I pick and choose to speculate which bits of
 the GPL are bugs and are not the intent of the copyright holder, and
 thus can be violated at whim?

        Unless explicit grants of rights are given, we do _NOT_ have
 the right to contravene what the license says.

The wheel of fortune turns incessantly round, and who can say within
himself, I shall today be uppermost.  -- Confucius
Manoj Srivastava   <srivasta@debian.org>  <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C

Reply to: