[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [gNewSense-users] Debian User. Is there a need to move to gNS?

From: MJ Ray
Subject: Re: [gNewSense-users] Debian User. Is there a need to move to gNS?
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 13:00:19 +0000
User-agent: Heirloom mailx 12.2 01/07/07

Yoni Rabkin Katzenell <address@hidden> wrote:
> MJ Ray <address@hidden> writes:
> > There are other small debian/gNS differences on free software: AIUI,
> > gNS will contain FDL'd adware manuals which are not free software ...
> ...and not two sentences later you start fanning the flames
> yourself.

Huh?  It's not flame-fanning to note that the FDL protects ads and
doesn't give the four freedoms, or that gNS contains such works under
the FDL, is it?  That should be pretty well-understood by now.  For
example, two quotes from Richard Stallman:

"The "cover text" feature, and certain other aspects of the license
that deal with covers, title page, history, and endorsements, are
included to make the license appealing to commercial publishers for
books whose authors are paid."

"The goal of invariant sections, ever since the 80s when we first made
the GNU Manifesto an invariant section in the Emacs Manual, was to
make sure they could not be removed."

I'm sure everyone who looks can find many more.

"Dave Crossland" <address@hidden> wrote:
> I expect we are all familiar with the Debian FDL controversy.
> I hope we are all also familiar with the Debian CC controversy, and
> that all those licenses must also be ruled out, outright.
> Given that, we've run out of popular Free Culture licenses. [...]

Nonsense.  There's MIT/Expat and oodles of others.  Even the GPL.
Then again, is Creative Commons the only popular?

> Except, in fact, the GNU FDL is a DFSG approved license as long as one
> includes the "with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no
> Back-Cover Texts" line in the copyright notice. This is what the
> Wikimedia Foundation do, for example.

Wikipedia used to have a cover text, but they engaged in some
questionable relicensing to remove it.  See:

> However, the FSF has recognised this situation is undesirable, and the
> forthcoming GNU Simpler Free Documentation License will close this
> adware loophole [...]

I hope that's true.

My Opinion Only: see
Please follow

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]