Quoting MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Rob Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Rufus Pollock wrote: [...]
> From a brief look the answer appears to be yes as they've cleaned up
> the DRM-related stuff in section 2
Yes. I'm hoping that will make the licence more palatable to Debian as well.
Probably not. For reasons I still don't understand, the DRM-related
parts of FDL 1.2 were decided not to be a problem for Debian.
I got the impression that they were a problem Debian was willing to tolerate.
The bad
taste remains the necessity that every advert-containing work
discriminates against at least one of history, legality, commerce,
philosophy, ethics, politics or similar fields.
Yes I do not like this. The SFDL doesn't allow arbitrary immutable
sections but
does allow dedications, which can be used for mischief but are no worse
than CC
URL linkbacks.
A simpler licence is a good thing - the number of people, even GNU
maintainers, botching FDL use was a problem. It needs some anti-DRM
measure like Transparent distribution in it, but I'm glad if it has no
format bans in it.
The FSF have some strange ideas about what is and isn't a transparent
format PNG
is but PDF isn't. I accept that PDF has DRM and other issues but it is more
human-readable than PNG.
I'm worried that the FSF are talking about a Wiki licence. This is a bad
idea, the SFDL is sufficient. If the Wiki licence is any less
restrictive it should just be the SFDL.
Has there been any advance indication about this? It was news to me.
Eben mentioned 3 licences, and their is mention of the Wiki licence at the
bottom of the FDL draft IIRC.
If FSF seriously believe that software is only programs, they are
already off-topic with FDL/SFDL, let alone getting into Wikis!
Well I think it's the wiki content (the markup) rather than the engine.
- Rob.
_______________________________________________
fc-uk-discuss mailing list
fc-uk-discuss@lists.okfn.org
http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/fc-uk-discuss
