On 1/23/06, Matt Brown <morven(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/23/06, Anthony DiPierro
<wikilegal(a)inbox.org> wrote:
On 1/22/06, Matt Brown <morven(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
Are you sure this is the correct reading of the
GFDL? I see it as
meaning that you cannot take a GFDL'd document and relicense it. NOT
that the original author cannot release their own original work under
multiple licenses.
I don't see any other way to read it. It doesn't say you can't
relicense the document. It says you can't "copy, modify, sublicense,
or distribute the Document except as expressly provided for under this
License" and that doing so (actually, according to the language,
merely "attempt"ing to do so) will "automatically terminate your
rights under this License."
Technically speaking, though, "the Document" is only the GFDL-licensed
version. If you work on an original, non-GFDL version and then
relicense a version as GFDL which you release, then the wording cannot
affect the parent document.
I'm not sure exactly what you're saying there. The wording doesn't
affect the document, it revokes the GFDL for someone who copies (etc.)
the document in some way outside the permissions of the GFDL.
But you do have a point that a separate version of the Document might
not be considered "the Document". I guess that would rectify the
situation for the case of a Document dual-licensed. Instead of one
Document, you call it two.
Also, if you are the original author, you are not
relying on any
rights granted by the GFDL. The GFDL grants people who are not the
copyright holder the right to distribute. If you are yourself the
copyright holder, you do not require the GFDL in order to distribute
the work - you are using your natural rights as a copyright holder,
not any additional rights the GFDL grants you.
Yes, what Tony said. I wasn't talking about the rights of the
original author, but rather the rights of the person given permission
under the GFDL.
I suspect at the very least that my reading is the
reading the FSF
intended, and that the ambiguity is thanks to rather poor legal
wording of the license, rather than original intention.
-Matt
Well, the original intention seems clear - to revoke permission under
the GFDL to someone (other than the original author, of course) who
breaks the GFDL. It's actually a clause originally from the GPL,
where it makes a lot more sense, because the GPL tries to tie the
permissions on distribution to the permissions on modification rather
than keep them seperable.
But in terms of the GFDL, I think it's clear that if, for instance,
you took a GFDLed document, changed an invariant section, and then
redistributed it, the intention is that you'd be breaking the GFDL and
therefore your permission under the GFDL would be revoked. What I was
suggesting is that this clause might come into effect even if you had
permission, for instance under a separate license grant, to change
that invariant section and redistribute the document.
I think you're right that this wasn't the reason that clause was
added. But I also don't think it's clear what the author intended to
happen in that situation. I do think it is clear, though, that the
author wasn't thinking merely of the fact "that you cannot take a
GFDL'd document and relicense it."
Anyway, this tangent was fun and slightly educational, but it's worn
out its welcome on my part :). Unless you have a particular question
about what I was trying to say I'm going to just leave my crazy ideas
about the GFDL as is.
Anthony