[okfn-discuss] Guide to open licensing

[Jonathan]

Wookey wrote:
>>> 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).
>
>   
Thanks for your advice!

I've put the license list in alphabetical order so that the GDFL is 
lower down the list (CC-BY/CC-BY-SA are now at the top).

I look forward to seeing the new release from the FSF...

Regards,

Jonathan