"Nathanael Nerode" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Time to see what we would need to change to make it DFSG-free.
On a quick readthrough of the SFDL, it looks like this to me:
* Unlike the GFDL, no Invariant Sections or Cover Texts.
And they can't be added, so it doesn't break copyleft.
* "Transparent" and "Opaque" definitions look OK this time.
* The anti-DRM clause looks like it's still problematic. It appears to
prohibit parallel distribution, because it applies to *any copies*. It
should be written to apply to *any recipient*, not any copy. This is the
prime point which should be fixed.
* The requirement to include the license in the work, rather than making
it accompany the work, is made much less obnoxious by the "excerpt"
clause.
* The mandatory "History" section is irritating, but much like a
Changelog,
so probably DFSG-free.
* Acknowledgements and Dedications could be non-free requirements if they
were abused, but I'm not sure. I think the requirements are free in this
draft, because
- only applies to actual acknowledgements and dedications
- only applies when the acknowledged/dedicated work is still present
- may make modifications which preserve the "substance and tone"
In conclusion, on a first glance, I think the only clause I really want
to get changed is the anti-DRM clause.
My quick readthrough pretty much agrees with your yours.
More detailed readthrough of the licence is somewhat problematic because
some parts of the licence are a bit contradictory. I've reported most of
them.
My notes were made under the name "jsmith" iirc so you should be able to
find them.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
