Re: GPL for documentation ?
Don Armstrong wrote:
What about it? If the combination in question of the GPLed work and
your work is a derived work, then the GPL covers the work as a whole.
So is a WP a derived work of a dictionary? IMO, it's much harder to make
this sort of judgement when you're mixing code and non-code.
How does the distinction between the GPL and the LGPL apply to a
dictionary? Or are the two licences the same when you are talking about
something that can't in any meaningful sense be "linked"?
If you're talking about source code, the prefered form for
modification applies equally well to documentation as it does to
Sure. I didn't say the entire thing was inapplicable.
If there really is a source for confusion, then make an addendum to
the license file explaining how the author views the GPL applying to
I seem to remember a very recent thread on d-l saying that this sort of
thing was a pain because it meant everyone's licence was different.
Also, if you must discourage people from using a license, please point
out specific problems with the license that preclude its application
to a specific class of work.
Well, exhibit A in the "GPL's not good for documentation" discussion is
the very existence of the GFDL, its freeness or otherwise
notwithstanding. This means that at least one and possibly more smart
free software legal minds took a long hard look at the GPL/documentation
issue and decided to put a bunch of work into a more appropriate
licence. I'm not convinced that was solely so they could force copies of
the GNU Manifesto to be prepended to everything.