On Wed, Feb 07, 2007 at 03:46:11PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > On Wed, Feb 07, 2007 at 12:07:59PM -0500, Douglas Allan Tutty wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 07, 2007 at 10:59:09AM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > possibly the LGPL or the WxWindows leicence to make it easier for > > > producers of other software to incorporate some or all of our > > > documentation, possibly in file formats not yet conceived of. > > > > > How would the GPL v2 prevent others from incorporating some or all of > > our documentation, in any file format, as long as they include the GPL > > v2 statement for all our stuff, even if what _they_ write is under a > > different licence? > > Some of their stuff might be executable code, and our stuff might be > embedded in strings within a code library. > Is this likely? If so, why isn't the rest of debian documentation under the GLPL?
Swing this around: Would the GLPL allow others to do something that we may not want them to do? Are you suggesting, for example, if we end up generating a commentary for the installation manual, that debian-installer may want to add our commentary to a tool-tip pop-up and the GPL wouldn't allow that? I think we would _want_ to allow that. If we're invisioning part of what we do to be providing the background so that a novice can understand the installation manual, and it is under the GPL, wouldn't they have looked at this too? Doug. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
