Le vendredi 20 janvier 2006 à 09:34 +0100, Dave Neary a écrit : > Leaving aside whether GFDL sucks or not, there are serious problems with using > the GPL for docs, primarily because what "source code" means is unclear. The source code, being the "preferred form for making modifications", is pretty clear for a documentation. It is a bit less clear for the included pictures, but you can consider the form provided by the initial copyright holder is that preferred form. > Requirements on the distribution of source code in the GPL become particularly > cumbersome in the context of printing a book. True. While the GPL is suitable for distributing a documentation on CD, it is annoying for distribution on paper. That's why dual-licensing a documentation with e.g. the GFDL or the OPL isn't a bad idea. Regards, -- .''`. Josselin Mouette /\./\ : :' : josselin mouette ens-lyon org `. `' joss debian org `- Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Ceci est une partie de message =?ISO-8859-1?Q?num=E9riquement?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?_sign=E9e?=