On 10/18/05, Diego Iastrubni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Ah, but with GFDL you have to provide the source too...
also, with GFDL doc can't be considered "source" ("transparent copy") for that matter, because it's specification is not "available to the general public" (section 1, sixth paragraph).
contrary to common belief - GFDL imposes MORE restrictions, not less, than GPL.
ביום שלישי, 18 באוקטובר 2005, 00:05, נכתב על ידי Ira Abramov:
> sorry for barging in, but what's wrong with the GPL itself?
GPL is for code, not documentation.
Imagine for example a situation in which you distribute some documentation and
want people to print it and charge for it (commercial distribution), however
you are publishing the documentation in PDF format.
With GPL you also need to provide the source (latex, openoffice, doc, html
whatever), but this is not the issue here. The most important thing in
documentation is the content, not the media.
Ah, but with GFDL you have to provide the source too...
also, with GFDL doc can't be considered "source" ("transparent copy") for that matter, because it's specification is not "available to the general public" (section 1, sixth paragraph).
contrary to common belief - GFDL imposes MORE restrictions, not less, than GPL.
