[freeroleplay] Re: GFDL not free?
- From: Samuel Penn <sam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: freeroleplay@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sun, 20 Apr 2003 19:16:53 +0100
On Sunday 20 April 2003 17:43, Ricardo Gladwell wrote:
> Hi Sam,
>
> Yes, I'm reading the same story on slashdot. Its not quite as clear-cut
> as the the hyperbolic headline reads: the GFDL can still be a 'free'
> license, as long as you do not include Invariant sections or use any of
> the other license options that require certain texts to be reproduced.
> In light of this we may have to modify our stance on the issue of the
> GFDL, namely that it might not be as 'free' as we first thought.
> Certainly, I'd be interested in hearing everyones thoughts so I can
> write a public annoucement on the web site regarding this issue.
Though Invariant sections are 'non free', I can see some good reasons
for them being there, especially for acknowledgements, references or
personal opinions - an author probably doesn't want any of these to
be changed without his permission.
One suggestion that was mentioned was to allow Invariant sections to
be removed, but not changed. Whether this will be take up by the FSF
remains to be seen.
I can only see Invariant sections being a problem 'downstream' - i.e.
if I don't add invariant sections to my document, then my distribution
is free. If someone else then takes that and adds an Invariant section
of their own, then the document has become 'corrupted', and it would be
necessary to fork the document before the Invariant was added in order
to maintain the free version. I'm not sure what then happens if other
additions in the Invariant-enabled versions are rewritten for the
non-Invariant version.
Would it be possible to add a clause saying that the document is
licensed under the GFDL, with the exception that Invariant sections
are not permitted?
Personally, I'm waiting to see what the FSF's response is.
--
Be seeing you, -------------------------------
Sam. http://www.bifrost.demon.co.uk/
Other related posts:
