On Sat, Sep 20, 2003 at 04:42:51PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > > I don't think the GFDL is a good place to start from when writing a > > documentation license, really. The WDL is a tangled mess. Start with > > the GPL instead, and try to answer this question: > > > > What do I want that this license does not already give me? > > There's nothing which is not in the GPL that I don't want. Wat I /do/ > want, however, is a Free Emacs manual in Debian. Amongst others. I've > been convinced that this won't happen with the GFDL, and I'm also quite > convinced the FSF will not likely drop the GFDL unless an acceptable (to > them) alternative is provided. Therefore, I took to crafting an > alternative. Whether the alternative will be accepted by the FSF remains > to be seen; but there's no harm in trying (other than that I risk > wasting a lot of time in a project with no practical results). Well, the stated goal of the FSF is, as far as I can tell, inherently non-free. So I don't think this is actually possible. If you could get them to compromise on their goal to some extent, then it should be fairly easy to write a suitable license based on that. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature