On Sat, 2004-02-28 at 09:58, Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley wrote: > Last year, when the controversy over whether the DFSG applies to > documentation (in particular GNU-FDL-ed documentation), I meant to mention to > someone (but promptly forgot) that the license under which the text of the > FSF's licenses (GPL, LGPL, FDL) are licensed is much stricter than even the > FDL so cearly violates the DFSG (if they apply to it). > > The GPL &c are allowed to be copied only in full without any modifications. > > If the DFSG do apply to non-software -- has a descision been made on this? -- > this would I think effectively stop Debian from distributing any GPLed work > on a CD which conforms to the DFSG.
Uh-huh. This too has been discussed to death, though perhaps not with an appropriate summary. Basically, the law requires that the copyright notice remain intact, and in a prescribed form. Furthermore, the law states that anyone other than the copyright holder who makes a copy of a copyrighted work (other than the poorly defined "fair use" rights and the "backup" exemption), is guilty of copyright infringement and subject to statutory damages of up to $150,000 per copy. Your only defense against this is the license granted by the copyright holder; if you alter it, it is no longer the license granted by the copyright holder, and might even be used as evidence of wilful intent to infringe (=maximum damages). Because of this, it is foolish in the extreme not to include the *exact* license text supplied by the original author with *every* copy. It is therefore clear that attempting to apply complete DFSG-freedom to a license is extreme folly; why would you ever want to open yourself up like that? It is clear to me that Debian has been proceeding with something roughly like the following: The legal documents (copyright notice, license) must be retained verbatim in order for all of us to avoid being sued into oblivion. Proper attribution (i.e., not misrepresenting anything about the original author) is the only honest thing to do. Everything else should be modifiable to suit, or else it isn't truly Free. I think it is up to those who would propose that the license texts be DFSG-free as well to provide a proposed benefit that would be worth exposing the project to $150,000 in liability per copy made of each affected package. -- Stephen Ryan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Digital Rights Management is bad for all of us: http://www.bricklin.com/robfuture.htm
