Re: documentation for novice and newbies

[Douglas Allan Tutty <dtutty@porchlight.ca>]

On Wed, Feb 07, 2007 at 03:46:11PM -0500, hendrik@topoi.pooq.com wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 07, 2007 at 12:07:59PM -0500, Douglas Allan Tutty wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 07, 2007 at 10:59:09AM -0500, hendrik@topoi.pooq.com wrote:
> > > possibly the LGPL or the WxWindows leicence to make it easier for 
> > > producers of other software to incorporate some or all of our 
> > > documentation, possibly in file formats not yet conceived of.
> > > 
> > How would the GPL v2 prevent others from incorporating some or all of
> > our documentation, in any file format, as long as they include the GPL
> > v2 statement for all our stuff, even if what _they_ write is under a
> > different licence?  
> 
> Some of their stuff might be executable code, and our stuff might be 
> embedded in strings within a code library.
> 
 
Is this likely?  If so, why isn't the rest of debian documentation under
the GLPL?  

Swing this around:  Would the GLPL allow others to do something that we
may not want them to do?

Are you suggesting, for example, if we end up generating a
commentary for the installation manual, that debian-installer may want
to add our commentary to a tool-tip pop-up and the GPL wouldn't allow
that?  I think we would _want_ to allow that.

If we're invisioning part of what we do to be providing the background
so that a novice can understand the installation manual, and it is under
the GPL, wouldn't they have looked at this too?

Doug.