Re: The GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) and /usr/share/common-licenses
On Sat, 6 Apr 2002, Joseph Carter wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 06, 2002 at 05:57:43PM -0500, Dale Scheetz wrote:
> > There are an ever growing number of packages that make use of the GNU Free
> > Documentation License. Isn't it about time to put a copy of this license
> > into the common reference area?
> > Who should I talk to about this?
> Why put a blatantly non-free license in the common licenses directory?
You clearly have an opinion on this issue ;-)
I suppose this stems from the "invarient section" clause in the GFDL?
While this declaration is "broader" than the same feature in the GPL, I
don't see the problem.
The GPL allows the license and the copyright statements to be both
required, and invarient. The GFDL simply recognizes that documents often
have historical, philosophical, or political statements that should, yes
need, to be protected from modification. These sections, such as the
history section of my book, writen by Ian M., deserve protection if truely
"free speech" is to continue to be protected. The technical material can
then be left "modifiable" as is needed and useful to such matherial.
What would be a more suitable "Free Documentation License" in your view?
_-_-_-_-_- Author of "Dwarf's Guide to Debian GNU/Linux" _-_-_-_-_-_-
_- aka Dale Scheetz Phone: 1 (850) 656-9769 _-
_- Flexible Software 11000 McCrackin Road _-
_- e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org Tallahassee, FL 32308 _-
_-_-_-_-_- Released under the GNU Free Documentation License _-_-_-_-
available at: http://www.polaris.net/~dwarf/
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to email@example.com
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact firstname.lastname@example.org