[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: If not GFDL, then what?

On Sat, Oct 11, 2003 at 04:18:39PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 11, 2003 at 05:00:16PM +0000, Brian M. Carlson wrote:
> > I would recommend the GNU General Public License, version 2. This
> > accomplishes your goals, and it is unequivocally free.
> I have equivocated on its freeness before, with respect to clauses 2a)
> and 2c).

I apologize. I didn't remember reading that when I wrote my message. I
did not mean to misrepresent your opinion or anyone else's, only to
represent my own.

> Also, I see no reason the author can't dual-license under the GNU GPL
> and and the GNU FDL.  It might be easier to get the publisher to go
> along with that if they've already bought into the rhetoric that the
> GNU GPL is an "inappropriate" license for printed documentation.

The author asked for a recommendation. I offered one which met the
specified criteria.

Brian M. Carlson <sandals@crustytoothpaste.ath.cx> 0x560553e7
"Let us think the unthinkable, let us do the undoable. Let us prepare
 to grapple with the ineffable itself, and see if we may not eff it
 after all." --Douglas Adams

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: