Daniel Ruoso dijo [Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 05:17:27PM -0300]: > Hmmm... I still didn't buy this argument... But it has been argued that > it is not the intent of this license clause and that, because of that, > it would not be enforceable, as, even the text not saying that, some > other references around are sufficient to disable this type of > enforcement of the license. > > I don't know where are these references (probably RMS comments), but, as > we agree it is a bug in the license, it's quite possible that such text > exists (there is a message from RMS saying he never thought this could > be applied with GFDL terms).
But then again, if I chose to license something under the GFDL as it is now, being aware of this bug/feature, I have created a work that is clearly non-free, and which is licensed under the GFDL and has no invariant sections. I don't care what RMS wanted to say, but I liked the license as a good way to find you not respecting it - I can sue people! So, at least until a new revision is published, GFDL cannot be seen as free. And works licensed under the current revision with no "or later" provisions cannot be seen as free. Greetings, -- Gunnar Wolf - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - (+52-55)5623-0154 / 1451-2244 PGP key 1024D/8BB527AF 2001-10-23 Fingerprint: 0C79 D2D1 2C4E 9CE4 5973 F800 D80E F35A 8BB5 27AF -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]