Re: Anton's amendment
On Thu, Feb 02, 2006 at 11:40:13AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>
> Advertising clauses are not about the work
> itself -- they are about ancillary activities, so are a different
> issue.
Advertising clauses are much worse than if they applied only to the
work. In fact they apply not only to the work but also to many
activities of the users of software with advertising clause. Any
program or documentation (even unrelated) that mention features of the
software with the advertising clause have to include the advertising
sentence.
> > We also explicitly say in the DFSG that we hold these restrictions
> > to still be free, since we explicitly name the GPL and the 4 clause
> > BSD as examples of free licenses. Being unable to excise or modify
> > a piece of secondary literature is onerous and inconvenient, but I
> > am not sure it is sufficiently different to things we already accept
> > to make it non DFSG free.
>
> You are also free to explicitly state that the GFDL
> restrictions are also to be considered free. Hence, the 3:1
> requirement, to allow that statement to be inserted into the DFSG.
He is free to explicitly state that GFDL restrictions are also free
but he doesn't have to. There is nothing in DFSG that can make GFDL a
non-free license.
Anton Zinoviev
Reply to: