Joe Wreschnig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >> How about making it compatible with the GPL?
/cheer On 12 Jun 2002, Joe Wreschnig wrote: > I would like to see some way to mark sections unmodifiable but > removable/renamable, e.g. acknowledgements or dedications, at the very > least. Start with "why is the GPL not suitable for documents". I've heard 3 arguments so far: 1) because it says "software" and "source code", and these are unclear terms for documentation. 2) Because it allows too much freedom. Why, anyone could change what I created in a way I don't like, or even make it into a something that offends me. 3) Because it allows too much freedom. Someone could take my work and put their name on it. Personally, I don't find #1 to be a problem, but I understand the argument, so I see value in coming up with a GPDL or GPML (General Public Documentation/Media License) that clarifies the terms. #2 is admittedly a strawman representation of the objection, but it seems to be real. It's either a miunderstanding of what freedom is, or an actual desire not to release the work freely. That's fine, but I don't see how it would be reconciled by making a new license. #3 IMO should be handled by trademark (or if required, naming limitations), exactly as it is for software. > I don't like or understand the FDL policy of making them > unremovable, but I do understand the need for making certain sections > unmodifiable (it's a lot harder to misrepresent someone with source code > than with documents). Remember, ideally this is not just for program > documentation. Here we're getting to the crux of #3. Why is it harder to misrepresent someone with software than with documents? Is it simply that it's easier to modify a document, so the freedom is expected to be used by a wider variety of people? > Perhaps it could be made compatible with a clause "Any section not > marked as an Immutable/Invariant/Unchangeable/Whatever they are called > if they exist section may be relicensed under the GNU GPL or GNU LPGL, > version 2 or later, as published by the Free Software Foundation." I like this a lot. It doesn't solve the fundamental problem (immutable sections are simply unfree), but in the case where they're not used, it makes it easy to use the text in GPL software. -- Mark Rafn [EMAIL PROTECTED] <http://www.dagon.net/> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
