Re: query from Georg Greve of GNU about Debian's opinion of the F DL
Georg C. F. Greve <firstname.lastname@example.org>:
> Although I have said it before, I'll say it again: I don't consider
> the GFDL to be perfect, but from the free documentation licenses I
> have seen so far, it seems to be the most solid one for the reasons
> I've described.
What do you mean by a "free documentation licence"?
> Of course technical manuals require change. So it may be possible that
> authors use invariant sections in an unwise way, covering parts that
> need to be changed to keep the manual useful. In that case such
> manuals should maybe be put into contrib.
So you agree that some documents licensed under the GFDL are not free.
I think people are unhappy about the FSF publishing a licence with
"Free" in its title, which does not however guarantee that stuff
licensed under it is free; GFDL documentaton is only free if the GFDL
is applied wisely. I'm glad the GPL doesn't have this feature.
Personally, I will stick to using the GPL, even for non-software.
Other people seem to have had the same idea. For example, here is an
on-line Esperanto dictionary licensed under the GPL: