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 <firstname.lastname@example.org> 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