[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: GNU FDL 1.2 draft comment summary posted, and RFD

On Wed, Jun 12, 2002 at 10:41:04AM -0700, Ben Pfaff wrote:
> Branden Robinson <branden@debian.org> writes:
> > My initial strategy is going to be to start from a simple base, like the
> > OPL without its optional clauses, and add concepts from the GNU GPL, and
> > the published GNU FDL draft.  My main goals are:
> [...]
> > * to appeal to people who are already using the OPL or GNU FDL
> >   (especially the latter)
> Isn't it mostly the FSF that's using the GNU FDL right now?  I
> think it's going to be difficult to talk the FSF into adopting
> someone else's license.

I've used the FDL before now for documentation I've written. I was
none too happy with its unnecessary complexities, but it was the best
available; I'd welcome a simpler and more generally appropriate

My objectives are simple: free, copyleft distribution, but one which
permits practical hardcopy distribution (not entirely sure what
"practical" means here); the GPL itself fails on the last
point. Merely using the GPL with a chaser of "Also, you can print this
out and distribute it" would seem to weaken the copyleft nature more
than I would like. Suggestions for solutions to this problem are

Enforcing invariant sections, or deriving payment from the work, are
not amongst my goals, unlike the FDL.

Plus, I'd like to be able to present people who are currently using
the GPL for documentation with an alternative.[0]

[0] "Hi, your current license means I can't print out the
documentation and give people copies easily, consider this one"

  .''`.  ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
 : :' :  http://www.debian.org/ | Dept. of Computing,
 `. `'                          | Imperial College,
   `-             -><-          | London, UK

Attachment: pgpTO2cxy40wN.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: