On Saturday 02 June 2007 19:05:16 Ben Finney wrote:
> Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Since the GPL is designed to be applicable to any work of authorship
> > (not only computer programs), I once again suggest using a more
> > neutral term than "the Program".  Something like "the Work" would
> > avoid misleading many many people into thinking that the GPL can
> > only be applied to computer programs.
>
[...]
> I agree that the GPL is the best FSF license to be applied to any work
> of authorship, but the FSF don't agree -- and I believe they expressed
> this disagreement long before they started promoting other licenses
> designed for non-program works.

Well, maybe that is changing ... the latest draft says in the Preample:

"The GNU General Public License is a free, copyleft license for
software and other kinds of works."

And, the license is is *very* generic in it's definitions of "Program" 
and "Source", but still, they used the works "Program" and "Source". And 
they apparently believe that documentation is not part of "other kinds of 
works", hence the GFDL[1].

[1] Which IMO is mostly benign, but still pointless.

-- 
Wesley J. Landaker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
OpenPGP FP: 4135 2A3B 4726 ACC5 9094  0097 F0A9 8A4C 4CD6 E3D2

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Reply via email to