Re: Should our documentation be free? (Was Re: Inconsistencies in
Joe Wreschnig said:
> On Mon, 2003-08-04 at 14:37, Joe Moore wrote:
>> How is that harder with the FDL "History" section than with the
>> "clearly marked" BSD code, or the GPL-required changelog?
> The document trail in "History" may not exist anymore (or may be
> inadaquate); you can't just say "Oh, this Invariant Section didn't
> exist 2 years ago; I'll take it out and pretend I had that version."
> You need to actually have a license for that version.
In other words, it is not at all harder with documents under the GFDL, than
it is with source under BSD, or the [L]GPL.
The GFDL is no more "viral" in this respect than any other source license
that allows non-Free derived work.
( Oops, I left out the <humor> tag below. )
>> Besides, you'll be able to find the latest Free version in Debian
>> Main. :)
( </humor> )
> Besides the caveats above, that doesn't solve the problem that the
> majority of GFDL documentation (specifically, the stuff from the FSF)
> is clearly non-free.
Then, what needs to be in Debian Main is the last Free version of those
documents, specifically the version that was licensed under the previous GNU
Documentation License, if that's Free, or an empty document, if that is the
last Free document.