Steve Langasek wrote: > On Tue, Sep 28, 2004 at 04:23:01PM -0700, Joe Buck wrote: >>"These exceptions are granted for derivative works only if those works >>contain no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover >>Texts." > > That's a possibility, but without buy-in from the FSF, I don't regard > the GFDL as a particularly good starting point for a free documentation > license. It seems like the CC licenses might be a better basis. Another possibility is to simply use the GPL, and grant exceptions for various cases. Given that an ideal Free documentation license would be GPL-compatible (if not the GPL itself, which is pretty ideal), and that any GPL-compatible license must not have any restrictions that are not in the GPL (so it must consist of some subset of the GPL's conditions), then that GPL-compatible documentation license could instead be written as a set of exceptions to the GPL. For example, if one wanted to permit distributors of physical copies to refuse to provide source, then that could be written as an exception. (I personally think it is a good idea to require distributors, both physical and electronic, to provide source. However, many people wish to waive this condition for convenience, and that's fine; the resulting license would still be free, just less of a copyleft.) - Josh Triplett
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature