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

Re: query from Georg Greve of GNU about Debian's opinion of the F DL

Georg C. F. Greve <greve@gnu.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:


Reply to: