[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [libreplanet-discuss] GFDL with Invariant Sections or other unmodifi

Subject: Re: [libreplanet-discuss] GFDL with Invariant Sections or other unmodifiable parts. Was: Final Thesis: H-node
Date: Mon, 20 May 2013 01:50:18 +1000
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686 on x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130509 Thunderbird/17.0.6

On 20/05/13 01:08, Michał 'rysiek' Woźniak wrote:
> Dnia niedziela, 19 maja 2013 o 15:39:57 Michael Dorrington napisał(a):
>> On 19/05/13 14:20, Thomas Harding wrote:
>>> Le 19/05/2013 14:52, Michael Dorrington a écrit :
>> [...]
>>>> How can we get the FSF to recognise this and so change the licence it
>>>> uses for its manuals to be a free one?
>>> This is one historical point of disagreement between
>>> Debian(FSGuidelines)/FSF,
>>> and has been highly discussed. Unfortunately...
>> I don't see it is a disagreement between Debian and FSF.  More of a
>> disagreement between the FSF and itself, as its philosophy and practise
>> disagree on manuals.  The FSF philosophy says that manuals should be
>> free but the FSF practise is to distribute non-free manuals.  That's
>> non-free by the FSF's own measure.
>>> Sometimes opinions are not flexible: you should wait for a good
>>> circumstance.
>> Be sure to point out when the good circumstance occurs. :)
>>> This thread and issued document by Michal could emphasize the problem,
>>> but you're pleased to find a solution ;)
>> I wish that Michał would post his text into the thread so we can discuss
>> it.
> Ask and ye shall receive:

The part above that got cut out in the [...] was when Michael said:

"I posted in December 2012 and January 2013 to this list about how
including manuals which are under the GFDL with Invariant Sections or
other unmodifiable parts (which is similar to a CC with ND licence) in a
distribution makes that distribution non-free."

Yet the document you posted only covers points specific to CC-*-ND and
GNU Verbatim licenses.

For the licenses in question, I agree with many of your points. However,
those are entirely different beasts to the GFDL, which is the license
that seems more commonly used for software documentation in GNU/Linux
distributions. I don't see any of your concerns take issue with anything
the GFDL does, given the strict limitations placed on non-variant sections.

In any case, let's make sure we don't confuse licenses.


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]