On Sat, 2 Jun 2007 19:38:09 -0600 Wesley J. Landaker wrote:

> On Saturday 02 June 2007 19:05:16 Ben Finney wrote:
[...]
> > 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."

Section 0. of the GNU GPL *v2* states, in part:


|   0. This License applies to any program or other work [...]
|                                          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
| The "Program", below, refers to any such program or work [...]
|                                                  ^^^^^^^

I think even the GNU GPL *v2* was designed with the applicability to
non-program works in mind.  It was certainly designed *primarily* for
programs, but also in such a way to be applicable to any work of
authorship.

At least, that's my understanding after reading the license text so many
times...

-- 
 http://frx.netsons.org/doc/nanodocs/testing_workstation_install.html
 Need to read a Debian testing installation walk-through?
..................................................... Francesco Poli .
 GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12  31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4

Attachment: pgpwJE40BM8Eq.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply via email to