Re: GNU FDL and Debian
Scripsit Barak Pearlmutter <email@example.com>
> Since the FSF felt that publishers could not use the GNU GPL for
> printed documentation, they adopted the GFDL for their manuals, to
> allow printed publication under terms they felt publishers would find
> acceptable. (The correctness of their reasoning is irrelevant for our
> current purposes, so please let's not get into it.)
I think it is impossible not to get into this point when you propose:
> A solution that springs to mind is for the FSF to re-license manuals
> under a dual license: GFDL/GPL. This would solve all the issues in
> one stroke.
To the extent that the GFDL caters for the wishes of publishers at
all, it is in that it makes it inconvenient for *competing* publishers
to publish and sell hardcopies. It would not help a publisher that
*he* has the text under GFDL if his competitors (or those that he
perceives as competitors) have it under the GPL.
Henning Makholm "Jeg har tydeligt gjort opmærksom på, at man ved at
følge den vej kun bliver gennemsnitligt ca. 48 år gammel,
og at man sætter sin sociale situation ganske overstyr og, så
vidt jeg kan overskue, dør i dybeste ulykkelighed og elendighed."