> Force and force... GNU maintainers agreed to follow the policies > of the GNU project, this is no different than say a Debian > maintainer
As long as they make sense; the GFDL does not make any sense. Putting documentation and software into the same box doesn't make sense, the GFDL makes perfect sense on the other hand in my mind. Nobody at the FSF addressed the serious concerns many of us have with the GFDL. In fact the GFDL hinders development of free documentation. Do you have anything to back this up? GFDLed documentation is free to be shared, used, modified, and viewed, I fail to see how any of that could hinder development of free documentation, on the contrary, it would foster free documentation. > I strongly doubt that the two have anything in relation. The GFDL has been written with publishers in mind; look at the terms: most make sense only for woodware. And later the own publishing branch ceases work? Do you know why it stopped? I don't. You are making claims without evidence as far as I can see, i.e. it stopped, so lets blame the GFDL. Maybe Lisa Goldstein (the person who started GNUpress) reordered priorities and started doing other work. I don't know, and as far as I can tell, neither do you. Making such baseless claims won't bring anything to the discussion. If you have anything to back this up, please share. Have you seen any change on ORA's licenses? I'm not sure what you mean. > clarifications (and simplifications, I find the license to long > and to complex), but none that are so grave that it is more > important than I can't grab a single short text from the very good glibc manual and use it with other projects - unless I add a bunch of useless attachments. Yes you can, that is protected under fair use. It is simply not designed for sharing. A GFDL document can be shared just as GPLed software. The GFDL does not put any chains on you as how you can share. I think you are making a similar (no offence meant) to what companies/people who support non-free software make, `I cannot use a GPLed program in my non-free program'. I.e., you disagree how to actually share the documentation. The GPL might be inconvenient for a publisher but it works far better for documentation. I disagree. There are many problems with applying the GPL to documentation. The GPL was designed for software in mind, other uses tend to cripple the actual goal (the distinction between `binary' and `source' comes to mind). I agree that plain texts are very different to software but documentation is clearly part of the code - at least it should be for any well written code. I disagree strongly, a _reference_ manual should be part of the code, this is something I could agree to. But a documentation that describes the software, say the Emacs manual, should not be part of the source code since they are two very different works. Cheers, and happy hacking! _______________________________________________ Discussion mailing list [email protected] https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
