[okfn-discuss] GFDL updates, compatibility, and confusion

[Benj. Mako Hill]

<quote who="Rufus Pollock" date="Mon, May 19, 2008 at 03:16:22PM +0100">
> With the Open Knowledge Definition we haven't explicitly stated that  
> invariant sections are a violation in the definition itself (perhaps  
> this could go in the annotated version). However in the conformant  
> licenses section [1] it does explicitly state:
>
> <quote>
> The GFDL is only considered conformant if you
>
>     * don't use invariant Sections or cover texts
>     * don't include an "Acknowledgements" or "Dedications" section
>     * amend the DRM restriction (section 2) to be less broad (for  
> example restricting to the requirement that the work is available  
> without TPMs)
> </quote>

Right. The FCW definition doesn't explicitly state anything either but I
(personally) mostly agree with your position.  One exception might be
acknowledgements but it's tricky. I don't think that invariant
changelogs or history information, for example, are necessarily non-free
if their goal is to maintain attribution. I've seen GFDL acknowledgement
sections used that way. I also think that covertexts can be used and
thought of like advert-clauses in the 4-clause BSD license which, while
universally thought of as annoying, are also almost universally treated
as free.

Argument for another time, perhaps.

Later,
Mako

-- 
Benjamin Mako Hill
mako at atdot.cc
http://mako.cc/

Creativity can be a social contribution, but only in so far
as society is free to use the results. --GNU Manifesto
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/okfn-discuss/attachments/20080519/8fe5f98b/attachment.sig>