<quote who="[EMAIL PROTECTED]" date="Wed, May 14, 2008 at 03:27:37AM -0700"> > Understood. Looking at the original writing on "free documentation" > principles, of which the GFDL is an example, it seems quit clear that > GFDL was designed specifically for *technical documentation of software*. > ( http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-doc.html )
I would go even farther. I would say that it was designed for the
manual for GNU software as published by the Free Software Foundation!
> However I don't see how GFDL 1.2 is considered "free" according to the
> Free Cultural Works Definition ("the license must not limit the
> freedom to distribute a modified version ... regardless of the intent and
> purpose of such modifications.") but that is probably a conversation
> for some other mailing list :)
I think that the definition should probably specify that a work is only
free if it contains no invariant sections. If it is (and most GFDL works
including Wikipedia are) then it really is quite a lot more like BY-SA.
Regards,
Mako
--
Benjamin Mako Hill
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mako.cc/
Creativity can be a social contribution, but only in so far
as society is free to use the results. --GNU Manifesto
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ okfn-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.okfn.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/okfn-discuss
