Re: GPL as documentation license
On Thu, 3 Sep 1998, Lyno Sullivan wrote:
>
> Basically, for reasons I will get to in a minute, I can only consider a
> license that embodies the spirit of copyleft as documented at
> <http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/copyleft.html>. If RMS believes a
> documentation license embodies the spirit of copyleft, then I would hope
> he would be willing to list it on that page and then I will consider it
> for my own use. If the Debian documentation license truly embodies
> copyleft, I will willingly join a crusade to persuade RMS to list it on
> his copyleft page.
>
Probably easy - RMS told me to use the license I'm using instead of the
GPL, and he uses it on all FSF documentation. I'm also using it because
it's the LDP User's Guide license and so I have to, since I'm using text
from that guide.
It is also a copyleft, if you read it. It's just much simpler since it
doesn't have to discuss source code, dynamic linking, and so on.
Anyway since RMS probably wrote the thing I doubt you'll have a hard time
convincing him to use it.
Havoc
Reply to: