Georg C. F. Greve <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Although I have said it before, I'll say it again: I don't consider > the GFDL to be perfect, but from the free documentation licenses I > have seen so far, it seems to be the most solid one for the reasons > I've described.
What do you mean by a "free documentation licence"? > Of course technical manuals require change. So it may be possible that > authors use invariant sections in an unwise way, covering parts that > need to be changed to keep the manual useful. In that case such > manuals should maybe be put into contrib. So you agree that some documents licensed under the GFDL are not free. I think people are unhappy about the FSF publishing a licence with "Free" in its title, which does not however guarantee that stuff licensed under it is free; GFDL documentaton is only free if the GFDL is applied wisely. I'm glad the GPL doesn't have this feature. Personally, I will stick to using the GPL, even for non-software. Other people seem to have had the same idea. For example, here is an on-line Esperanto dictionary licensed under the GPL: http://www.uni-leipzig.de/esperanto/voko/revo/ Edmund
