On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 12:10:33PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: > * 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. All of which is belied by the fact that the GPL contains a very careful definition of "Program" which has obviously been crafted to apply to any literary work. > > 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). You have not. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature