From kde-devel Sun Jan 08 11:25:02 2006 From: Alejandro Exojo Date: Sun, 08 Jan 2006 11:25:02 +0000 To: kde-devel Subject: Re: Debian, KDE and the GFDL problem Message-Id: <200601081225.03084.suy () kurly ! org> X-MARC-Message: https://marc.info/?l=kde-devel&m=113671954828898 El Sábado, 7 de Enero de 2006 22:55, Brad Hards escribió:> On Sunday 08 January 2006 01:43 am, Michael Pyne wrote:> > 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.>> There is no point in trying to argue about this from a logical point of> view. Why? > "Gnu FDL isn't free" is a matter of belief amongst the more fervent > members of the Debian community. However it is their choice what they ship. I'm not a Debian Developer, but I can consider myself a member of the community, because I use it, I like it, and I try to help as much as I can. I don't think is a matter of "belief". I'm not a lawyer, but after reading the license, I really think that some parts of the license are just ambiguous or unclear, and this can lead to legal problem in some countries. As Isaac explained, the "verbatim copying" section is problematic, because I can be breaking the license if I put the document in a password protected intranet, or attach it in a encrypted email. And this is just because that part is written in a brief way, without specifying details that might be important. I don't think that the license isn't free in spirit, of course. -- Alex (a.k.a. suy) - GPG ID 0x0B8B0BC2http://barnacity.net/ - Jabber ID: suy@bulmalug.net >> Visit http://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-devel#unsub to unsubscribe <<