On Wed, 2003-08-27 at 21:50, MJ Ray wrote: > On 2003-08-28 03:41:47 +0100 Joe Wreschnig <piman@debian.org> wrote: > > I use "documentation" in the strictest sense here > > [...] free publication license. Sorry for the confusion. > > "Documentation" is not a subset of "publication" to you? A new twist > on an old flamefest. I never said that. This is also totally irrelevant to the FDL debate, but, just to clarify: I consider documentation (at least on a computer) to be a subset of software. However, I don't consider the GPL a documentation license, but a software license. The GPL can be applied to documentation, but non-documentation too, though. I consider documentation (on a computer) to be a subset of publications (on a computer). I don't consider the OPL to be documentation license for the same reason the GPL is not a documentation license. The OPL can be applied to documentation, but non-documentation too, though (however, a smaller set of non-documentation than the GPL can). I consider documentation (on a computer) to be *the* set of documentation (on a computer). For this reason, I feel the GFDL is a documentation license. Because of the nature of the GFDL's terms, I don't feel it can be applied to non-documentation at all; if you try, most of the clauses stop making sense. I tend to refer to licenses by the most general category of works I feel they can consistently license. I also don't refer to any works not on a computer, because they are completely outside the scope of anything the Debian project does. -- Joe Wreschnig <piman@debian.org>
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part