Re: Clarifying non-free parts of the GNU FDL
On Tue, Sep 28, 2004 at 09:21:43PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> Joe Buck <Joe.Buck@synopsys.COM> writes:
> > Side issue #1: even a GFDL with exceptions is still going to be GPL
> > incompatible. True, but that's also the case for several other
> > licenses that are considered DFSG-free, so the point isn't relevant
> > for this discussion. We can recommend dual licensing, but don't need
> > to require it.
>
> It's particularly important for documentation of GPL'd works, where
> being able to move code and informative text back and forth -- for
> online help, for example -- is useful but made impossible by the
> licensing.
I'm fine with recommending that people dual-license; as you say, it's
a PITA otherwise. But incompatibility with the GPL does not cause
GFDL non-freeness.
Reply to: