Re: docs: license etc.

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. 


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 (

  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 Veillard      | Red Hat Network
veillard redhat com  | libxml Gnome XML XSLT toolkit | Rpmfind RPM search engine

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]