Savannah rejects a project because it uses GPL
Alfred M. Szmidt
ams at gnu.org
Sat Feb 11 12:07:09 UTC 2006
Let's agree to disagree, withough trying to read the other party's
opinions with the wrong semantics (a problem that happens too often
in our environment, bts).
This I can agree to. :-)
> Later, after following the discussion in debian-legal and
> elsewhere, after thinking about it ourselves, we came to the
> conclusion that it has been a very risky choice, and we switched
> away from it in the next edition of the book.
> Could you share these conclusions?
As I wrote, we switched away from the FDL, whose major problem in this
specific context is the risk of proprietarization by third parties.
What risk for proprietarization? I can't see how you could make a
free document into a non-free one.
As for the discussion in debian-legal, the position statement
(http://people.debian.org/~srivasta/Position_Statement.xhtml) is a
good summary, although it became much bigger than what one can
easily digest in reasonable time (I didn't, actually).
That position statement is sadly complete bunk, I have yet to get the
time to write a refutation for it. Many, if not all, of the arguments
there are based on a complete misunderstanding of the license, and
what it actually says.
> [...] derived works whose technical contents can't be folded
> back in the original manual.
> This is not entierly true, you can fold it back, but then you also
> have to fold the invariant sections. I think this is a prefectly
> valid thing to require.
I disagree. If the competing publishing house adds a chapter and a
cover text stating that it's "A Nestlè book" (just to use fake names),
I can't really reuse their added chapter in my next edition.
Why not? What is stopping you? As far as I can see it, you do not
want to give credit to `Nestlè' for having written the chapter, one
could compare this to refusing to include the copyright notice in a
program, or similar.
More information about the Discussion