On 25/05/07, Ben Finney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The "lot of complex clauses ... that would be cumbersome and unnecessary" is greatly outweighed by the huge simplification that comes from having *all* software in a package -- programs, documentation, data -- licensed the same way, as already addressed in this thread.
I keep hearing about how important it is to have everything licensed the same way because you can't move GGPL code into a GFDL manual or move code from the GFDL manual into a GGPL manual (extra G added on GPL just for fun). I don't understand. The GFDL allows free modification of code (since it's a technical section, can't be invariant), so what's the big deal? Moreover, the document that describes how to apply GFDL even suggests itself to license code in the manual under the GPL, if this code is substantial (which it rarely is; I can't think of a GNU manual that has any considerable amount of code that can't already be extracted and used under the terms of the GFDL). I have strong disagreements with Debian's treatment of the GFDL (and it makes us Debianistas look like fundamentalist wackos to the rest of the free software world), but perhaps those are concerns for another time. I just don't see why it's such a problem to have "software", as Debian calls documentation, with different licenses for intended different usages. - Jordi G. H. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
