On Sun, Dec 02, 2001 at 10:37:46PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: > By "existing licenses" I meant the actual licenses in actual use, > including the GNU manuals, many of which have invariant sections. Well, three anyway. The GCC manual, the Emacs manual, and the Emacs Lisp Reference manual. If there's another I'm not aware of it, though my paper copies are 1-2 years old and the FSF might be busily adding invariant sections to the gawk manual, the make manual, the texinfo manual, the glibc manual, the flex manual, etc. > The GFDL was written to make it easy to license new manuals the same > way. I don't doubt it. > > Of the existing licenses that has come up in this discussion, only the > > OPL and GNU FDL encourage withholding the right to modify from large > > pieces of text/code written by the author. > > Neither *encourages* it; Both license provide specific mechanisms for doing so, which the MIT, 2 & 3 clause BSD, LGPL, and GPL do not. Better? > and note that the GFDL explicitly does *not* encourage it for "large > pieces" of text. And the GFDL certainly does not talk about making > code part of an invariant section *AT ALL*. I was speaking of the OPL and the GNU FDL in the aggregate. They are both relatively new licenses with a similar purpose. > Is it now fair game for you to just spread FUD? s/encourage/provide mechanisms for/ With that correction, my observation stands. -- G. Branden Robinson | Never underestimate the power of Debian GNU/Linux | human stupidity. branden@debian.org | -- Robert Heinlein http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |
Attachment:
pgpkiMW_GaJbY.pgp
Description: PGP signature