[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       kde-devel
Subject:    Re: Debian, KDE and the GFDL problem
From:       Michael Pyne <michael.pyne () kdemail ! net>
Date:       2006-01-07 14:43:18
Message-ID: 200601070943.23704.michael.pyne () kdemail ! net
[Download RAW message or body]

[Attachment #2 (multipart/signed)]


On Saturday 07 January 2006 07:51, Isaac Clerencia wrote:
> Hi Lauri :)
>
> On Saturday, 7 January 2006 13:39, Lauri Watts wrote:
> > The FDL, with the above terms, is the only license currently in use in
> > KDE, although there are some legacy documents licensed under the GPL.
> >
> > Before this goes any further, can you please show me where (and why)
> > debian believes the GFDL *with no invariant sections and no front/back
> > cover texts* is a non-free license?
>
> http://people.debian.org/~srivasta/Position_Statement.xhtml
>
> Quoting from there:
> "The problems with the GFDL fall into three major categories, which are
> treated in detail below."
*snip*
>
> Transparent And Opaque Copies
> -----------------------------
>  The requirements for redistributors should be to make sure the users can
> get the transparent form, not to force users to download the transparent
> form even if they don't want it.

Huh?  From the section in question [1], a distribution can state in the Opaque 
copy where the Transparent copy can be obtained by a member of the 
network-using public, using public-standard network protocols.  The 
distribution also needs to make reasonably prudent steps to ensure that the 
Transparent copy is available there one year after the Opaque copy is no 
longer distributed.  But nowhere does it say the end-user must have the 
Transparent copy if they have the Opaque.

Regards,
 - Michael Pyne

[1] http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html

[Attachment #5 (application/pgp-signature)]

>> Visit http://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-devel#unsub to unsubscribe <<


[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]