Am Samstag, 7. Januar 2006 14:26 schrieb Isaac Clerencia:
> Well, if you take the GFDL *literally* (and I guess that's how a lawyer
> will take it), nobody can put that stuff in a DRM-protected hard-disk, in a
> encrypted file-system, or in a 700-permission directory.

Hi Isaac,

The intention of the GFDL is to provide similar rights of the GPL like
- GPL allows to use the program <-> 
GFDL allows to read the docs in an opaque form
- GPL allows to learn on code level <-> 
GFDL allows reading the transparent form
- GPL allows to redistribute with obligation to provide sources too <->  
GFDL allows to redistribute with obligation to provide the transparent form 
too
- GPL allows to improve with obligation to share the improved sources too <-> 
GFDL allows to improve with obligation to share the improved transparent 
form.

I think that the main reason for the GFDL was that a documentation license 
should protect some rights that the GPL doesn't protect. 
These are (as cited from the GFDL-preamble):
- Secondarily, this License preserves for the author and publisher a way to 
get credit for their work, while not being considered responsible for 
modifications made by others.

This means that unlike the GPL you are obliged to mention the original authors 
and must mention where you modified something.

So I think that many documentation writers wouldn't mind switching to another 
license if it would contain these additional protections of the GFDL.

Perhaps we should add some exception to the license: e.g.:
As exception to the GFDL you are allowed to store the transparent form on 
encrypted media for the purpose of improving it.

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