On Tue, Jan 24, 2006 at 10:52:56AM +0400, olive wrote: > Fabian Fagerholm wrote: > >Works licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as > >published by the Free Software Foundation (GNU FDL), are free in > >accordance with the Debian Free Software Guidelines (DFSG), if and only > >if the work is licensed using the following options of the license:
Tell some Debian Developers that black is not white and that pi is not 3, and they demand a vote ... > I still don't understand how Debian can consider free the advertising > clause of the original BSD license and not accept something very similar > for the GFDL? This has in the past make the object of long flame but I > never had any answer. So I ask again. If something has been already said > about this specific question (why the difference between the original > advertising close of the original BSD licence and the GFDL), please give > a reference The advertising clause is: "All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this software must display the following acknowledgement: This product includes software developed by the University of California, Berkeley and its contributors." If this causes problems, you can always elect to not mention the use of the software in advertising. That's annoying, but accepted. There's no such escape with front- and back-cover texts. It's also not at all obvious to me how accepting acknowledgements in advertising implies that this consession should be extended to everything else. Covers on a book? What next; is requiring that software pop up a dialog every fifteen minutes to say my name free? It's just this sort of wedging, saying "we allow this, so we should allow this, too--and wait, now we should allow this other thing too, it's just a little more!", that will destroy Debian as a free system. (And cover texts would not be a small concession at all, but a very big one.) -- Glenn Maynard -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
