Steve Langasek wrote:
It's true that there's not a consensus about whether the DFSG *should* apply to data and documentation (although there was a sufficient majority sharing this belief for the GR on the question to stand), but there is certainly a consensus about whether the GFDL is a DFSG-free license.
Doesn't `sufficient majority sharing this belief' actually imply a consensus about this belief? True, it wasn't unanimous, but the voting was pretty close.
How about rewriting GFDL documentation.
Anyone actually doing this?And, BTW, how can GNU release for example gcc with info files that are GFDL, while it is clearly impossible to modify the gcc source code without the documentation? I mean, the GPL says about "source code":
The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it.Thus, the info files for gcc are part of gcc's source code, and should be released under the GPL.
Oh, well, I'm must be missing something. -- Groetjes joostje 47d3fcfe28f2a83497e79d9bc7d5087c-4a1ee1fddab4648175518cb4c1c9edb3ed0e89f0