A need for a document license

[Bernd Warken <bwarken@mayn.de>]

On Mon, Nov 26, 2001 at 10:52:43PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> 
> Moreover, the DFSG applies to *software* by its own explicit terms,
> and we simply have never had (nor needed) to worry over much about
> other kinds of material.  Things which do not directly impact the
> freedom of *software* are separate.
> 
Good that someone has understood this finally.  A `document' is much
complexer than the source of a program.  There is more than software
documentation.

1) The document is written in some format.  So there is a `source' just
like normal software.  This could be GPL'ed.

2) There are many conversion tools for translating the document into 
another format.  That's different from software.  Some conversions
are lossless, others are not.  This is covered by the FDL (transparent
and opaque copies).

3) The document has a content.  This could be some kind of artwork -
music, painting, poetry, ...; or just some kind of journalistic article
or an information that is not originary (e.g. the documentation of a
software).  The content is different from the document's source code.
The source code should be protected by a license like the FDL, while the 
content must have a license of its own.

4) There can be derivative work using the document, e.g. performances,
exhibitions. etc.

A new kind of document license based on the GNU Free Documentation 
License is needed.  Who is interested?

Short, constructive comments welcome.

Bernd Warken <bwarken@mayn.de>