> How about making it compatible with the GPL? It would be really nice > to be able to take documentation and put it into a program, and vice > versa. > > To that end, I would suggest making it simply the GPL but with a > clarification of what object code means. In particular, since source > code is well defined ("preferred form of the work for making > modifications to it"), I would say that object code is anything > derived from source code but not actually source code itself. I would like to see some way to mark sections unmodifiable but removable/renamable, e.g. acknowledgements or dedications, at the very least. I don't like or understand the FDL policy of making them unremovable, but I do understand the need for making certain sections unmodifiable (it's a lot harder to misrepresent someone with source code than with documents). Remember, ideally this is not just for program documentation. Perhaps it could be made compatible with a clause "Any section not marked as an Immutable/Invariant/Unchangeable/Whatever they are called if they exist section may be relicensed under the GNU GPL or GNU LPGL, version 2 or later, as published by the Free Software Foundation." Actually, it would probably be better to just take the wording from the LGPL section 3 and change "a given copy of the Library" to "any non-Invariant section of the Document." and change the last bit to mention documents instead of libraries as well. -- - Joe Wreschnig <piman@sacredchao.net> - http://www.sacredchao.net "What I did was justified because I had a policy of my own... It's okay to be different, to not conform to society." -- Chen Kenichi, Iron Chef Chinese
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part