[DS-discuss] Re: GFDL (was: Re: debian and rms)

[Rahul Sundaram]

hi


> If a nutter wrote a good manual on Apache so be it.
> I will use it if 
> there is a need for it and acknowledge the author as
> a nutter if I can 
> be bothered to read up his/her rant.


good. i would probably like to do that too.
unfortunately this is not entirely gracious

> 
> >
> >If you publish or distribute Opaque copies of the
> >Document numbering more than 100, you must either
> >include a machine-readable Transparent copy along
> with
> >
> Sorry I was not astute enough to understand what was
> 'machine readable' 
> and that you were referring to the content.
> ...got it all wrong in my previous mail.
> 
> I understand the need for Transparent copies and am
> sure you do too.


> Then by its electronic nature I do not see how
> distribution of a non 
> encrypted version alongside it will be a problem.
> Anyway would it not be the case that  as soon as the
> encryption is 
> deciphered one will have the source or simply be
> pointed to a URL for 
> the source?

were you aware of this before. people can violate this
licensing term quite accidentally.


> 
> Most importantly let us remembe this is for a number
> > 100.
> OK this might be  a constraint of freedom when
> compared to the GPL'ed 
> software model) but I guess this is the special
> arrangement that will 
> make publishers take up the GFDL. No?

i wouldt bet on that but i think we can end up this
discussion. i was just giving out examples to indicate
that the license has issues that was raised in debian
legal that anyone using fdl should be aware of and i
think i have reached that point now


rahul sundaram

________________________________________________________________________
Yahoo! India Promos: Win TVs, Bikes, DVD players & more!
Go to http://in.promos.yahoo.com