Re: Request for suggestions of DFSG-free documentation licences
On 25/05/07, Ben Finney <bignose+hates-spam@benfinney.id.au> wrote:
The "lot of complex clauses ... that would be cumbersome and
unnecessary" is greatly outweighed by the huge simplification that
comes from having *all* software in a package -- programs,
documentation, data -- licensed the same way, as already addressed in
this thread.
I keep hearing about how important it is to have everything licensed
the same way because you can't move GGPL code into a GFDL manual or
move code from the GFDL manual into a GGPL manual (extra G added on
GPL just for fun). I don't understand. The GFDL allows free
modification of code (since it's a technical section, can't be
invariant), so what's the big deal? Moreover, the document that
describes how to apply GFDL even suggests itself to license code in
the manual under the GPL, if this code is substantial (which it rarely
is; I can't think of a GNU manual that has any considerable amount of
code that can't already be extracted and used under the terms of the
GFDL).
I have strong disagreements with Debian's treatment of the GFDL (and
it makes us Debianistas look like fundamentalist wackos to the rest of
the free software world), but perhaps those are concerns for another
time. I just don't see why it's such a problem to have "software", as
Debian calls documentation, with different licenses for intended
different usages.
- Jordi G. H.
Reply to: