Daniel Carrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > My only concern is that I don't fully understand the implications of using > the GPL for documentation.
They're roughly the same as using the GPL for programs. The GPL's definition of Programs (with capital) is quite flexible. Unfortunately, the FSF don't encourage this and recently replaced the FAQ about it with "Why don't you use the GPL for manuals?" that makes their arbitrary and inconsistent position about advertorials (that they call "invariant sections") while FUDding the GPL. http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#WhyNotGPLForManuals (I usually link to my local mirror, in answer to a previous Q I didn't answer) I see having a machine-readable copy too as a feature not a bug (encourages less tree death), especially for manuals, and I'd like to see the other "cumbersome" examples. -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Subscribed to this list. No need to Cc, thanks. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
