> A manual is a type of a book. It makes sense for manuals as > well.
Free manuals must not be restricted to only ever be distributed as books. The recipient should have the freedom to take pieces of the manual and distribute it in other forms, such as a reference card or sticker. Should's and should not's. I think a `fair use' clause like this in the GFDL would be a good idea where you are not required to include the invariant sections, etc. But where should one draw the line? And where does copyright law draw the line? Berne is very vauge, and leaves it to each country to decide. > the GFDL does not cause any problems with mixing code and > documentation in the same package. It causes direct problems with taking pieces of the FDL manual and putting it into GPL code, or vice versa. The result is not redistributable under either license. If you are the copyright holder, or have a specific entity that is the copyright holder, then this is no problem. It is no different than having a GPL incompatible license which happens to be a free software license. _______________________________________________ Discussion mailing list [email protected] https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
