Re: [Fsfe-uk] FDL additional constraints

[MJ Ray]

Rob Myers wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Feb 2010 11:21:08 -0000, "Sam Liddicott" <address@hidden>
> wrote:
> > If a document contains this license statement, is it compliant with the 
> > GPL3? [...]
> 
> If by "compliant" you mean "compatible" then no, the GPL and FDL are
> incompatible for the FSF's definition of compatible.

I agree.

> > And, technically, is such a document licensed under the FDL or have we 
> > just made a new license which is the FDL + 3 constraints?
> 
> You cannot add the requirement that downstream users not add invariant
> sections. The text as above simply declares how the FDL is being used on
> the document it is applied to. [...]

If you don't want the invariant sections adware, don't use FDL.  There
is a SFDL which doesn't have adverts, but I think it's still draft
after more than 3 years.  See
http://gplv3.fsf.org/sfdl-draft-2006-09-26.html

> But possibly a better solution is to dual-licence the literate sources as
> FDL/GPL3+ . [...]

That's OK.  I think an even better solution is to move off of
Savannah to something that doesn't require use of non-free-software
licences like the FDL.

> I would recommend asking address@hidden about this approach to make
> sure it's sound.

I'd ask my own legal advisors, not FSF.

> I am not a lawyer, this is not legal advice.

Likewise.

Hope that helps,
-- 
MJ Ray (slef)  Webmaster and LMS developer at     | software
www.software.coop http://mjr.towers.org.uk        |  .... co
IMO only: see http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html |  .... op