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

Re: Critique of draft GNU Free Documentation License v1.0

On Tue, Jan 11, 2000 at 10:57:00PM -0700, Richard Stallman wrote:
>     If someone makes only minor modifications, I don't think they have a
>     right to an invariant section
> If someone makes only minor modifications and adds an invariant section
> which you want to remove, you can go back to the previous version.
> You would lose his modifications, but since they are minor, that is
> no great loss.

But wouldn't it create lots of versions of the same license? If you
want some characteristc added, lets say, in the "third" rewrite _with_
the modifications you didn't agree with? You'll have no choice but
accept that modifications to use the license. 

>       To resolve this problem I think
>     the license should require that the license would be attached to the
>     document whenever the document becomes unmaintained.
> The passive voice ("be attached") avoids stating who the actor is.
> In this case, that question is crucial.  Who would this be
> a requirement on?  In what circumstances?  To do what?

I see that as a community requirement. The maintainer of the document
would, as a last modification, communicate that hes not going to
support it anymore and he's making it available for others to
maintain. The license, IMHO, should always be with the document. If
not within that, at least in another file named "LICENSE" (all caps,
as usually).

> I can't see any possible answers for those questions.
> As I see it, if we want the license to be included
> in all copies once the document is unmaintained,
> the only way to accomplish this reliably is to put the
> license in all copies when they are made.

As I said before, it should be in all copies even when it's being
maintained. A reference to another file would be enough, I think. 

>     I'm still not clear who the "publisher" is for documents that are not
>     printed on paper but are just posted at websites.
> The publisher is the person or organization who is responsible for the
> distribution of copies to the public.  In the case of a web site,
> the publisher is whoever puts it on his web site.

This "who" stands for the person who put it on the web site or the
organization who hosts that? I think it's the first one, but in some
cases, it should be both them. 

Godoy.	<godoy@conectiva.com.br>               GPG Fingerprint
                                         851B B620 626D 2AD0 E783
"Ser poeta não é minha ambição,          E932 1330 BE6D A4A3 0625 
 é minha maneira de estar sozinho"
		- Fernando Pessoa.

Except where explicitly stated I speak on my own behalf.
Exceto onde explicitado as declarações aqui feitas são apenas minhas.

To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org