On Fri, Mar 07, 2003 at 10:34:23AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > On Fri, Mar 07, 2003 at 11:47:52PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > > So, considering the comments made and the FSF's lack of response , > > it's probably time for us to do a brief and simple "GNU FDL Considered > > Harmful" write up , > As part of this, I think we should write a boilerplate rider that people > who want to use the GNU FDL can apply, which will void those sections of > the license we regard as non-free. This is much like existing "OpenSSL > linking exception" riders that people put on GNU GPL, but I'd propose > that we add a twist; derivative works must retain the terms in the > rider. > > This would ensure GNU FDL-licensed works would not be able to be > "re-propritarized" from our perspective. You'd want to be careful about ending up with YA documentation license that's mutually incompatible with everything else out there. Or at least, very upfront about it, so people can avoid it. > > and a review of our documentation to see what needs to be forked from > > an earlier version or moved into non-free. > Yes, that's going to be the painful bit, and the one that gets our > hapless volunteer flamed to hell and back. So, how's X 4.3 coming along, anyway? ;) > > Can someone other than me take care of this? > I'm willing to start a thread on here this weekend. Good-o. Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns <email@example.com> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/> I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred. ``Dear Anthony Towns: [...] Congratulations -- you are now certified as a Red Hat Certified Engineer!''
Description: PGP signature