Re: gEDA-user: licensing Ronja under GNU FDL

[Ales Hvezda <ahvezda@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

[ Ales here, I'm reposting this since majordomo didn't recognize the
  e-mail as being subscribed to the geda-dev/geda-user mailinglist.  ]

-- Cut here --
Delivery-Date: Mon, 08 Nov 2004 15:07:07 -0500
From: Steve Meier <smeier@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

I think a the issues revolved around two areas. They both are in the 
document preamble where you say this document is licenced under the FDL....

The first being the use of invarrient sections.  If you just say nothing 
is invarient then it shouldn't be an issue.

The second which says that version 2 or any other later version... Well 
that assumes that later versions of the fdl license are ok with you. I 
would just reduce that to saying version 2 of fdl and if a later version 
of fdl comes out that is ok with you then update your document.

Steve Meier


Karel Kulhavy wrote:

>Hello
>
>Is here anyone with any opinion on possible licensing Ronja under GNU FDL?
>There have been severe disputes over FDL's freeness in Debian community.
>What's your opinion on the matter whether licensing Ronja under FDL will
>enforce releasing schematics only in "transparent formats", or even
>possibly forcing PCB's derived from schematics to be released only in
>"transparent formats"?
>
>Is anyone holding an opinion here that the whole copyright matter is just
>a piece of shit and information just wants to be free?
>
>Reading the disputes I got a feeling that the license grounds aroung GPL and
>FDL are likely to become messy minefields soon, regarding for example issues
>around validity of GPL and FDL in Czech Republic or mutual incompatibility
>between FDL and GPL.
>
>Cl<
>
>  
>