Re: rms on debian
David Fokkema <dfokkema@ileos.nl> wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 17, 2003 at 03:19:24PM -0400, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
>
> > I wish RMS was as concerned about free documentation as he is about free
> > software.
>
> Could you elaborate a bit on that? What's the problem with the GNU
> _Free_ Documentation License?
I'd call it the GNU Somewhat Free Documentation license.
To quote someone on /.
If I write a manual, a company can update it and add their invariant
section. If I later decide to add the new material from the company to
my copy of the manual, I have to add their invariant section, despite
being the author of most of the content.
I call it a poison pill.
There are other problems. You can't excerpt text into a derived work
without including the text of the license; Not just have the license as
a separate file, but the actual license text must be included, and it's
pretty long. Imagine trying to make a reference card out of that.
Another thing that annoys me is when the main documentation for a GPL'ed
work is licensed under the GFDL. Anyone who forks the project cannot cut
and paste text between his version of the code and manual. The licenses
are incompatible. Now consider that all the FSF manuals are under this
license! Yuck.
Peter
Reply to: