On Sat, Sep 20, 2003 at 05:41:09PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote: > On Sat, Sep 20, 2003 at 04:42:51PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > > > I don't think the GFDL is a good place to start from when writing a > > > documentation license, really. The WDL is a tangled mess. Start with > > > the GPL instead, and try to answer this question: > > > > > > What do I want that this license does not already give me? > > > > There's nothing which is not in the GPL that I don't want. Wat I /do/ > > want, however, is a Free Emacs manual in Debian. Amongst others. I've > > been convinced that this won't happen with the GFDL, and I'm also quite > > convinced the FSF will not likely drop the GFDL unless an acceptable (to > > them) alternative is provided. Therefore, I took to crafting an > > alternative. Whether the alternative will be accepted by the FSF remains > > to be seen; but there's no harm in trying (other than that I risk > > wasting a lot of time in a project with no practical results). > > Well, the stated goal of the FSF is, as far as I can tell, inherently > non-free. So I don't think this is actually possible.
I don't have a lot of hope either, but that doesn't mean I shouldn't try. > If you could get > them to compromise on their goal to some extent, then it should be > fairly easy to write a suitable license based on that. Again, that is an alternative (and viable) way to do it, but I find it easier to work in this way. -- Wouter Verhelst Debian GNU/Linux -- http://www.debian.org Nederlandstalige Linux-documentatie -- http://nl.linux.org "Stop breathing down my neck." "My breathing is merely a simulation." "So is my neck, stop it anyway!" -- Voyager's EMH versus the Prometheus' EMH, stardate 51462.
