Re: A clarification for my interpretation of GFDL

[Frank Küster <frank@debian.org>]

Anton Zinoviev <anton@lml.bas.bg> wrote:

> On Fri, Feb 03, 2006 at 06:52:45PM +0100, Frank Küster wrote:
>>
>> > 2. Compilation works.  Such works are based on many different
>> >    documents and as a result the volume of all invariant sections for
>> >    the resulting document can be too big.  However DFSG accept as free
>> >    some licenses that prohibit any compilation works.
>> 
>> You're talking about the patch clause?  Many others have, IMO
>> convincingly, explained why a patch clause does not prohibit to combine
>> two or more works.
>
> I belived that any license using the patch clause would make the
> combined works impossible and the others showed me that this is
> possible with some licenses.  On the other hand at least for QPL it is
> quiet obvious that the combined works are impossible [*].  The
> discussion has not finished yet, we have to determine exact conditions
> in the license that make the combined works impossible.  In order to
> simplify the discussion I promised to post a message with my
> conclusions and I haven't done this yet.
[...]
> [*] http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2006/02/msg00224.html

I see.  But the QPL is a particularly bad example - AFAIK there's no
consensus on -legal whether it is free at all.

Regards, Frank
-- 
Frank Küster
Single Molecule Spectroscopy, Protein Folding @ Inst. f. Biochemie, Univ. Zürich
Debian Developer (teTeX)