Re: docs: license etc.

[Daniel Veillard <veillard redhat com>]

On Sat, Dec 29, 2001 at 04:13:41PM -0500, Alexander Kirillov wrote:
> We usually use FDL with no invariant sections, no front and back matter
> - so this controversy does not arise in our case. 
>
> Sasha
>
> On Sat, 2001-12-29 at 08:39, J.H.M. Dassen (Ray) wrote:
> > On Fri, Dec 28, 2001 at 20:03:38 -0500, Alexander Kirillov wrote:
> > > Currently gnumeric manual carries GPL license. Are there any reasons why
> > > not use the FDL? GPL is not really intended for use with documentation.
> >
> > Please note that there is quite a lot of controversy regarding the FDL
> > allowing for unmodifiable/unremovable portions of text; see the debian-legal
> > archives of the last few months (http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/).

  I also posted on the gnome-foundation list some potential problems
of the GFDL. This may or may not apply to Gnumeric documentation, but
I would not present the GFDL as a required Licence for the Gnumeric
documentation. This may make sense for the user manual but not for other
parts of the documentation.

Daniel

-- 
Daniel Veillard      | Red Hat Network https://rhn.redhat.com/
veillard redhat com  | libxml Gnome XML XSLT toolkit  http://xmlsoft.org/
http://veillard.com/ | Rpmfind RPM search engine http://rpmfind.net/