EU Copyright..

Jeroen Dekkers jeroen at
Sat May 4 23:06:44 UTC 2002

On Sun, May 05, 2002 at 12:41:48AM +0200, Tomasz Wegrzanowski wrote:
> On Sun, May 05, 2002 at 12:40:40AM +0200, Jeroen Dekkers wrote:
> > On Sat, May 04, 2002 at 11:33:46PM +0200, Tomasz Wegrzanowski wrote:
> > > No, it's not.
> > > DFSG is perfect, it's GFDL what is flawed.
> > 
> > No, the first flaw of the DFSG is that it only goes about software and
> > not about documentation.
> There was always lot of documentation in Debian.

I've read part of the discussion.

> If FSF didn't introduce completely broken GFDL,
> it would all be alright.

It isn't broken, it's a good license, only the reasoning might be
difficult to understand.

> > > GFDL with "invariant sections" or some "front/back cover" things is
> > > proprietary license.
> > 
> > It isn't, it only takes away freedoms you can't do anything useful
> Not having to publish crap is something very useful.

> > with and is generally only abused. The same does the GPL.
> Have you ever worked with open/free documentation ?

I work with it on a dialy base. Most of the documenation I work with
is under the GNU FDL.
> It would completely destroy Wikipedia if we allowed some 'invariant
> sections'.

Why? What's wrong with an invariant section telling why wikipedia was
created? Or to raise money for the project?

Jeroen Dekkers
Jabber supporter - Jabber ID: jdekkers at
Debian GNU supporter -
IRC: jeroen at openprojects
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 232 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <>

More information about the Discussion mailing list