Re: [gNewSense-users] GFDL

[MJ Ray]

Tryggvi Björgvinsson <address@hidden> wrote:
> Paul O'Malley wrote:
> > IANAL however I have a strong opinion on this
> > 
> > with no Invariant Sections
> > 
> > this method got debian approval iirc
> > 
> > that is key to your choice - if the word no was not there we would have
> > a problem
> > 
> > so if it said invariant sections we would have a problem
> > 
> > this is a bit like the BSD licences that said you have the right to make
> > invariant versions but we give it to you with no invariant sections
>
> IA(most definately)NAL so I'm a bit lost in the legalese.
>
> But, if I understand you correctly, the "no invariant" makes the license
> free. How come the packages are named for example automake1.9-nonfree.

Calling a package automake1.9-nonfree seems a bit of a lazy naming to
me.  automake1.9-manual seems better, but it's not my choice.

The full text of Debian's resolution includes "This means that works
that don't include any Invariant Sections, Cover Texts,
Acknowledgements, and Dedications (or that do, but permission to
remove them is explicitly granted), are suitable for the main
component of our distribution."

In other words, merely having no Invariant Sections is *not*
sufficient to be suitable for the debian OS (aka main).
http://www.debian.org/vote/2006/vote_001#amendmenttexta

The automake manual licence posted has an invariant section (Back
Cover Text) which is not an Invariant Section.  Language lawyerism.

One reason I dislike the FDL is that there are sections that are
invariant, but which aren't Invariant Sections.  The Cover Texts used
on most GNU manuals hinder re-using GNU manuals for other purposes,
because those cover texts can become inaccurate - or even fraudulent!
Users may not correct them and still use the FDL'd material.  This is
like the CC Non-Commercial "Creative Flowerbeds" problem but worse.
http://mjr.towers.org.uk/blog/2006/fdl#general
http://mjr.towers.org.uk/blog/2006/cc#background

However, debian's decision is merely informative.  I'd expect
gNewSense to take a FSF-ish line and decide the four freedoms matter
for programs, but it only needs "effective freedom" for manuals.

Hope that explains,
-- 
MJ Ray - see/vidu http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html
Experienced webmaster-developers for hire http://www.ttllp.co.uk/
Also: statistician, sysadmin, online shop builder, workers co-op.
Writing on koha, debian, sat TV, Kewstoke http://mjr.towers.org.uk/