> On Tue, Jul 01, 2003 at 11:31:03AM -0400, Emma Jane Hogbin wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 01, 2003 at 01:53:40AM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
> > > Sounds like the GFDL. You might want to have a look at debian-legal
> > > archives on this topic; there are unfortunately various concerns about
> > > its freeness as far as Debian's definition of the term is concerned. :-/
> > [url]http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200304/msg00132.html[/url]
> > [url]http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200304/msg00243.html[/url]
> > The summary seems to be that it's not a problem as long as there are no
> > invariant sections. Since I have no intentions of making any part of the
> > doent invariant, I think this is a fine license for my needs.
> Unfortunately I'm not sure that the links you quote above represent a
> general consensus in Debian. In particular, several people have
> expressed the serious concern that the text in section 2 of the GFDL
> forbidding the use of "technical measures to obstruct or control the
> reading or further copying of the copies you make or distribute" has the
> effect of forbidding the installation of GFDLed doents on encrypted
> filesystems, such as the USB memory stick on which I keep various useful
> things like my GPG key.
> I'm aware I'm coming across as a pain here; I'm really just passing it
> on. Due to issues like the above, as the maintainer of the Debian
> doc-linux packages I'm likely to come under substantial pressure soon to
> relegate all LDP doents licensed under the GFDL to non-free, and I'd
> like to keep the number of affected doents as small as possible.
> However, I'll stop here and not say anything more unless there are
> specific questions; I think I've put forward my point as best I can and
> your licensing decisions are as always yours alone.
> Colin Watson [cjwatsonflatline.org.uk]