Re: Request for suggestions of DFSG-free documentation licences
"Wesley J. Landaker" <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> On Tuesday 22 May 2007 08:09:33 Ben Finney wrote:
> > The consensus (not unanimous, but consensus nonetheless) of
> > debian-legal is that the DFSG, regardless of which of its clauses are
> > exercised, is non-free for any software, including documentation.
> (I assume you meant "GFDL" here instead of "DFSG".)
My apologies, yes. "... the GFDL ... is non-free for any software,
including documentation" was my intended meaning.
> It's stretching quite a bit to call it consensus, but anyway, given
> that the GPL and other good Free Software licenses can work
> perfectly fine for both software and documentation, there isn't much
> reason IMO to use the GFDL.
Indeed. If you're in the position of deciding the license for all the
software in the package, just use one license that applies to each
file, and the issues become much simpler.
\ "Laugh and the world laughs with you; snore and you sleep |
`\ alone." -- Anonymous |