[okfn-discuss] Guide to open licensing

Wookey wookey at aleph1.co.uk
Wed Sep 5 00:36:50 UTC 2007

On 2007-09-03 22:33 +0100, Jonathan wrote:
> Thanks for your comments, Rob!
> > I am concerned about the FDL comment that recommends ammending Section 2 
> > of the licence. The modified licence would not be the FDL and would 
> > therefore be incompatible with the FDL. This comment should therefore be 
> > removed.
> >   
> Is this alright with others on the list? I didn't take part in 
> discussions about DRM in the GFDL and wasn't involved in drafting this 
> bit of the licensing page. It'd be great to hear what everyone thinks.

The GFDL is a problematic license, as explained in the Debian document
you link to. That covers the issue with why section 2 as it stands
makes the license non-(DFSG)-free under the heading "The DRM restriction".

I'd put other less-problematic licences further up the list, as
encouraging people to use the GFDL is a mistake IMHO, until the FSF
release a better version. Currently slated for 'later in 2006' I see...

(Yes it is ridiculous that the FSF's free documentation licence isn't
adequately free, but there you go - that seems to be where we've been
at for quite a few years now - even worse is the continued absence of
good copyleft alternatives. I find choosing a free licence for my
documentation currently a very unsatisfactory experience, and keep
hoping someone (preferably the FSF) will fix things).

Principal hats:  Balloonz - Toby Churchill - Aleph One - Debian

More information about the okfn-discuss mailing list