(I'm not here right now, please email a message) ([info]reddragdiva) wrote,
@ 2008-04-24 22:07:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
Even the Free Software Foundation doesn't understand the GFDL.

Has anyone ever gotten a straight answer from licensing@fsf.org about GFDL queries? I have never even heard of an answer from them that isn't their Magic 8-Ball imitation. "Reply hazy, read the license text and ask your own lawyer." Our lawyer is Mike Godwin and he says it makes his head hurt. YOU WROTE THE DAMN THING. WHAT DID YOU MEAN? WHAT WERE YOU THINKING? ANSWER ME!

In fairness, the FSF contact page says licensing@fsf.org will help with "questions about the GPL and free software licensing." Even the FSF has given up trying to make sense of the GFDL. The new version can't happen soon enough.

(Provoked by asking for help with the reuse FAQ and the likely utter unfeasibility of audio versions of GFDL text. The latter is one of the best arguments I can think of for running screaming to CC-by-sa as absolutely soon as possible and throwing the GFDL into a fire.)


(Post a new comment)


[info]bellinghman
2008-04-24 09:46 pm UTC (link)
"Reply hazy, read the license text and ask your own lawyer."

Well of course.

They'd really, really prefer you pay for the lawyer rather than them, because lawyers are expensive beasts. If you're really nice, you'll tell them what your lawyer said. And then they'll be able to answer other people a little more clearly.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

[info]reddragdiva
2008-04-24 09:51 pm UTC (link)
I rather think "Our lawyer is Mike Godwin and it makes his head hurt" trumps that.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

[info]bellinghman
2008-04-25 08:34 am UTC (link)
Oh, I'd rather think that, too.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

[info]reddragdiva
2008-04-24 09:51 pm UTC (link)
Especially as they're still recommending the pox-ridden thing.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

[info]neuro42
2008-04-24 10:20 pm UTC (link)
I thought the FSF was religiously opposed to straight answers, what with such generally not being bombastic propaganda.

(Reply to this)

[info]ewx
2008-04-24 10:51 pm UTC (link)
I remain convinced that documentation ought to have the same licence as the software it documents; or more generally that it MUST be at least as legal to document your changes to a body of code as it is to make those changes in the first place.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

[info]bellinghman
2008-04-25 08:33 am UTC (link)
Now you're just being sensible!

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

[info]ewx
2008-04-25 09:00 am UTC (link)
Also one should be able to distribute under the same licence, even in the absence of any modifications. The FSF's licensing screwup has actively reduced the quality of Debian, by forcing lots of docs into non-free and therefore out of the default install. (Not that info docs are that convenient in the first place...)

(Reply to this)(Parent)

[info]oonh
2008-04-25 01:21 am UTC (link)
In a not too distant parallel world:

"This object is under the FNZT-22 weight 5 modulus 13 subtertiary wombat-extrusional meta-content dated inverse trapezoidal license of the Q-V-R type...."

(Reply to this)(Thread)

[info]reddragdiva
2008-04-25 09:06 am UTC (link)
"Free for use, reuse, modification and redistribution under this license as long as a 100kg iron weight is attached to every copy" is also a free license and about as useful in practice.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

Create an Account
Forgot your login?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…