Re: CC-BY : "clarification letter" ?
Daniel Carrera <dcarrera@math.umd.edu> wrote:
> My only concern is that I don't fully understand the implications of using
> the GPL for documentation.
They're roughly the same as using the GPL for programs. The
GPL's definition of Programs (with capital) is quite
flexible. Unfortunately, the FSF don't encourage this
and recently replaced the FAQ about it with "Why don't
you use the GPL for manuals?" that makes their arbitrary
and inconsistent position about advertorials (that they
call "invariant sections") while FUDding the GPL.
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#WhyNotGPLForManuals
(I usually link to my local mirror, in answer to a previous Q I didn't answer)
I see having a machine-readable copy too as a feature not a bug
(encourages less tree death), especially for manuals, and I'd
like to see the other "cumbersome" examples.
--
MJR/slef
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Subscribed to this list. No need to Cc, thanks.
Reply to: