> How about making it compatible with the GPL? It would be really nice
> to be able to take documentation and put it into a program, and vice
> versa.
>
> To that end, I would suggest making it simply the GPL but with a
> clarification of what object code means. In particular, since source
> code is well defined ("preferred form of the work for making
> modifications to it"), I would say that object code is anything
> derived from source code but not actually source code itself.
I would like to see some way to mark sections unmodifiable but
removable/renamable, e.g. acknowledgements or dedications, at the very
least. I don't like or understand the FDL policy of making them
unremovable, but I do understand the need for making certain sections
unmodifiable (it's a lot harder to misrepresent someone with source code
than with documents). Remember, ideally this is not just for program
documentation.
Perhaps it could be made compatible with a clause "Any section not
marked as an Immutable/Invariant/Unchangeable/Whatever they are called
if they exist section may be relicensed under the GNU GPL or GNU LPGL,
version 2 or later, as published by the Free Software Foundation."
Actually, it would probably be better to just take the wording from the
LGPL section 3 and change "a given copy of the Library" to "any
non-Invariant section of the Document." and change the last bit to
mention documents instead of libraries as well.
--
- Joe Wreschnig <piman@sacredchao.net> - http://www.sacredchao.net
"What I did was justified because I had a policy of my own... It's
okay to be different, to not conform to society."
-- Chen Kenichi, Iron Chef Chinese
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part