Re: GFDL with no invariants/covers, is ok?
Yaroslav Halchenko <email@example.com>
> | Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document
> | under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.1 or
> | any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no
> | Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts.
> Does it sound ok?
FDL 1.1 has never been approved for debian AFAIK. Why aren't they using
the current version? I'm slightly worried by that. I guess 'or any
later version' lets you upgrade it in the package.
FDL 1.2 with no covers or invariants has been special-cased by
but I don't understand why.
> If not - what would be the best DFSG-free alternative license I should
> suggest to release documentation under?
I'd suggest the same licence as the rest of the software: that will make
it easiest to move things between program and manuals.
> P.S. Please CC me - I am not on the list.
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct