Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sunday, Jul 6, 2003, at 18:39 US/Eastern, MJ Ray wrote:
>> I think that GFDL is only called a "free documentation licence" which
>> is probably technically accurate, even if I don't like it.
> The only sense in which the GFDL is a free documentation license is
> that I didn't have to pay to download it from <http://www.gnu.org/>.
You disagree that the documentation part of a GFDL-covered work is
acceptably licensed? I do not talk about the work as a whole, which seems
clearly not to be. Some of the format restrictions are questionable,
I guess.
This is all semantics and doesn't really change the current situation,
but it's probably why FSF called it the "free documentation licence"
rather than "free document licence" and is a useful thing to remember.
I don't think it's useful to start trying to claim that it isn't a free
documentation licence and obscures the real point that matters to us here:
can this whole work be included in Debian?
Related points that I consider interesting and relevant to what happens
next are: is there any legal basis for distinguishing programs from other
literary works? From other electronically stored works? What about
fonts? Encoding tables? Is DFSG sufficiently general?
--
MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know.
http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ jabber://[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Creative copyleft computing services via http://www.ttllp.co.uk/
Thought: "Changeset algebra is really difficult."
