Re: GPL-compatible, copyleft documentation license
* Andrew Suffield:
>> The GPL was designed to be applied to computer programs. A license
>> explicitly labeled as "documentation license" should address this
>> issue.
>
> I call bullshit. Who said it was designed to be applied to computer
> programs?
The license itself mentions "program" several times, the FSF writes on
its web pages that the GPL was "originally designed for software" (the
FSF software, like almost anybody outside Debian, uses "software" in a
narrow sense that doesn't include documentation), and I'm sure you can
find statements from RMS or Eben Moglen that say similar things.
> It addresses anything that could be necessary for a work classified as
> "literary".
I've already named certain usage rights which apply to literary works
and are not granted by the GPL (neither explicitly or implicitly).
Reply to: