On 2004-09-21 19:09:18 +0100 Roger Leigh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
If the documentation was to remain GFDL licenced, would be possible to add a clarification to the licence in order to counter the main problems which would affect this work? [...]
In general, I think they should grant exceptions to part of the licence and give additional permissions, rather than issue "clarifications" that contradict the licence or its author.
The work is written in Docbook/SGML, and contains no invariant sections. [...]
Does it contain any of the other modification-restricted sections?
If these clarifications were to be made, would the licence be considered DFSG-free? Are there any other possible amendments that could be made to make the licence DFSG-free?
With extensive additions, I think it could be DFSG-free. It will probably end up as non-copyleft, as all future authors would need to use the same extras.
Lastly, are there any alternative licences available? The author (and copyright holder) of the work would prefer a licence suited to documentation rather than programs (which I don't disagree with).
The GPL-2 is the usual recommendation here for this situation if you want copyleft. Its definition of "Program" can include documentation. For a docbook document, it seems particularly useful because of the source code concept.
BTW, please could you CC me on any replies--I'm not subscribed to debian-legal.
Done. -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only and not of any group I know Creative copyleft computing - http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ http://www.thewalks.co.uk stand 13,Lynn Carnival,12 Sep