Re: GR Proposal: GFDL statement
On 1/5/06, MJ Ray <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> Stephane Bortzmeyer <email@example.com>
> > But not all documentation is attached to a software. For instance, if
> > I write a book "Software development on Debian", releasing it under
> > the GFDL is still the reasonable thing to do.
> It's reasonable if you want to attach adverts to it and allow others
> to do so, while witholding the freedom to edit or remove those adverts.
> If one wants to forbid all changes, then releasing under a CC-nd
> licence is. a reasonable action. Not free software, though, which is
> what this list usually likes and a free software operating system
> should have free software manuals.
I've been a Debian user for eight years. I can count on one hand the
number of times I've used proprietary software in all of that time;
well, unless you count helping people out by answering their (MS
Windows or MAC OS) questions or looking over their shoulder. I'm
also working with Wikipedia, CC, & FSF on licensing issues. I'm an
academic scientist. I run a 70 processor cluster (Debian stable &
OpenSSI.) I do synthetic biology. I work on Personal Genomics; my
mentor's article about the work is the cover story for January's
Scientific American. I hate proprietary academic publishing, so,
I'd like to see a "pipeline" from Academic Wikis to Academic Journals
to Wikipedia. That pipeline will almost certainly be GFDL/CC-BY-SA.
It's really sad to see blood boil over these licenses. Since I am
talking to people at FSF & CC regularly, I would be more than happy to
bring Debian concerns to both groups in a, hopefuly, productive
fashion. If there's a desire for that, just get in touch with me.
Thanks, and Happy New Year,
PS. I'm often on AIM/Google Talk as "alexanderwait" and or Freenode as
"asw" or "await".
http://freelogy.org/wiki/User:AlexanderWait (GnuPG ID 4153 C516)