Re: GFDL - status?
Anthony DeRobertis <email@example.com> wrote:
> On Sunday, Jul 6, 2003, at 18:39 US/Eastern, MJ Ray wrote:
>> I think that GFDL is only called a "free documentation licence" which
>> is probably technically accurate, even if I don't like it.
> The only sense in which the GFDL is a free documentation license is
> that I didn't have to pay to download it from <http://www.gnu.org/>.
You disagree that the documentation part of a GFDL-covered work is
acceptably licensed? I do not talk about the work as a whole, which seems
clearly not to be. Some of the format restrictions are questionable,
This is all semantics and doesn't really change the current situation,
but it's probably why FSF called it the "free documentation licence"
rather than "free document licence" and is a useful thing to remember.
I don't think it's useful to start trying to claim that it isn't a free
documentation licence and obscures the real point that matters to us here:
can this whole work be included in Debian?
Related points that I consider interesting and relevant to what happens
next are: is there any legal basis for distinguishing programs from other
literary works? From other electronically stored works? What about
fonts? Encoding tables? Is DFSG sufficiently general?
MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know.
Creative copyleft computing services via http://www.ttllp.co.uk/
Thought: "Changeset algebra is really difficult."