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

Re: Clarifying non-free parts of the GNU FDL



On Mon, 04 Oct 2004 10:51:01 -0700 Josh Triplett wrote:

> 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.)

Agreed fully.
The GPL *is* suitable for documentation.
And providing source is indeed important in order to permit the
recipient to fully exercise the freedoms we value...


-- 
          Today is the tomorrow you worried about yesterday.
......................................................................
    Francesco Poli                            GnuPG Key ID = DD6DFCF4
 Key fingerprint = C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12  31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4

Attachment: pgp3uGqrnTGPe.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: