Le lun 25/08/2003 à 16:21, Fedor Zuev a écrit : > On Mon, 25 Aug 2003, Josselin Mouette wrote: > > >Le lun 25/08/2003 ? 09:22, Fedor Zuev a ?crit : > >> When you try to apply license outside of its scope you should expect > >> to receive funny results. GFDL has a very narrow scope. It is bad. > >> But it is different problem. > > >No, it is exactly one of the problems. > > Every free license have its scope of applicability, outside > of which it may turn to non-free license. For example, if you > license a music phonorecord under GPL, you get pretty non-free > phonorecord with funny license. And you can begin from GPL-covered > literary work.
*shrug* This would be non-free? Wow. BTW, don't even try to justify this statement, you have already proved several times you are able to say any sort of crap without foundation in this discussion. > Yes, I would understand your points. GFDL has too narrow > scope for..... > > But, please, can you take one point at a time? > > You talk about real dangers for users from GFDL? We have been talking about dangers for users FROM THE BEGINNING OF THIS DISCUSSION. I suggest you read it again. And if you don't understand it, read it once again. This may be needed for stubborn minds. > Or you talk about Eternal Freedom? We are talking about freedom for our users *today*, not in 70 years. > What _exactly_ wrong with DFSG? DFSG does not define scope > in which works should be freely modifiable. It can't be universal > scope because there is no licenses, which free in the universal > scope. Free licenses don't discriminate against scope, that is the point. -- .''`. Josselin Mouette /\./\ : :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED] `. `' [EMAIL PROTECTED] `- Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom
signature.asc
Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée
