Re: debian and the fdl

Folks -

Cross-posting this to gtk-doc-list, as there are a number of people who
have licensed their library docs, generated with gtk-doc, under the

The start of this thread is here:

On Mon, 2003-04-21 at 08:07, Daniel Veillard wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 21, 2003 at 07:26:56AM -0600, John Fleck wrote:
> > Their argument, in a nutshell, is that the GFDL's ability to declare
> > sections "invariant"[1] does not meet the Debian "free" test. Some
> > apparently argue that a document declaring no such invariance is
> > sufficient to meet the test. Barak Pearlmutter[2] makes the interesting
> > argument that the stickiness of invariant sections raises the
> > possibility of a GFDL document turning into essentially a huge billboard
> > over the years:
>   I raised the problem of the GFDL last year when it was suggested
> to use it for docs. RMS never came back with a satisfactory answer from my
> point of view, this just confirms my opposition to using the GFDL for
> the GNOME project documentation, c.f. last year's thread:
>   IMHO whoever decided to make the switch should takes his responsability
> and either get the problem fixed at the Licence level, or manage to get 
> a suitable Licence and the authorizations needed to switch back to it.
> The documentation for my code is under the same Licence as my code, 
> it ships in the same package and don't turn my documentation into an
> advertizing vector for the Licence itself.
> Daniel
John Fleck
jfleck inkstain net (h) jfleck abqjournal com (w)

"Not only isn't reality real - it's an illusion created by unreal people to
sell real people unnecesary cars." - Griffy

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