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

Re: Documentation licenses (GFDL discussion on debian-legal)

On Wed, 2002-12-04 at 16:58, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 03, 2002 at 08:31:56PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > Martin Wheeler <msw@startext.demon.co.uk> writes:
> > 
> > > And to those who would say: "There's no difference between software and
> > > documentation" I would reply -- sorry, but you really know nothing about
> > > writing; specifically, _why_ writers write.
> > 
> > Documentation *must* change to adapt to software, if the software can
> > change.
> > 
> *When* documentation applies to software. Gosh, has nobody thought of Debian
> distributing documentation that does _not_ apply to documentation [sic, I 
> assume software is meant]? Sample:
> - the Project gutenberg texts (not that their license is currently free)

Their license is moot in sane countries -- the texts are in the public
domain. Er, modulo the small percentage of life+50 texts.  And modulo
Australia, which seems to have rejected Feist, although the case is on
appeal to the Supreme Court there.

> - the documentation that makes up an encyclopedia (if any such thing would be
> at some time available for Debian to use)

Wikipedia is available now under the GFDL.

Encylopedias too must change -- an article on the country about East
Germany must mention its current nonexistence.

-Dave Turner                        Stalk Me: 617 441 0668
"Once a man has tasted freedom he will never be content to 
be a slave." - Walt Disney

Reply to: