Re: A WDL.

To: debian-legal@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: A WDL.
From: Etienne Gagnon <etienne.gagnon@uqam.ca>
Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2003 11:48:37 -0400
Message-id: <3F648DD5.9010701@uqam.ca>
In-reply-to: <1063553426.1979.6.camel@localhost>
References: <a0b86e7ac9b1642f355e3d21cc652e59@Bouncing> <1063553426.1979.6.camel@localhost>

I don't understand...

Why go through all the trouble of writing a WDL?  Why not stick with
using normal software licenses (GPL, LGPL, X11, BSD-3clauses,...) for
documentation?  Anyway, the presence of invariant/opiniated/whatever
non-free parts in the body of the *licensed-work* will hardly ever meet
the requirement of the DFSG, unless the DFSG is amended.

Just a thought.

Etienne


--
Etienne M. Gagnon, Ph.D.             http://www.info.uqam.ca/~egagnon/
SableVM:                                       http://www.sablevm.org/
SableCC:                                       http://www.sablecc.org/

Reply to:

Follow-Ups:
- Re: A WDL.
  - From: Wouter Verhelst <wouter@grep.be>

References:
- Re: A WDL.
  - From: MJ Ray <markj@cloaked.freeserve.co.uk>
- Re: A WDL.
  - From: Wouter Verhelst <wouter@grep.be>

Prev by Date: Re: A WDL.
Next by Date: Re: "Robinson, Nerode and other free beer zealots" was: A possible GFDL compromise
Previous by thread: Re: A WDL.
Next by thread: Re: A WDL.
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread