Dale Scheetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I find it ... foolish to declare a license to be free IFF some clauses of > the license are not exercised. Using this language, any proprietary > license becomes free as long as none of the proprietary sections are > inforced by the author... > > The license is a complete text. It is either free or it isn't. Selective > editing creates a new license that may or may not actually exist.
No, that's not the case. Any options are chosen by the author at the time of licensing the work. It's not a matter of enforcement, it's a matter of choosing what variant of the license to use on a specific piece of documentation. This may mean that piece of documentation using the FDL with certain options may not be free, and that a piece of documentation using the FDL with different options may be free. Think of the FDL as a meta-license, and specific instances as used in packages as the real license. -- Alan Shutko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - In a variety of flavors! Art is the tree of life. Science is the tree of death. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
