Quoting Amit Aronovitch, from the post of Tue, 18 Oct: > On 10/18/05, Diego Iastrubni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > sorry for barging in, but what's wrong with the GPL itself? > > GPL is for code, not documentation.
Where did you get that idea? All GNU docs were under the GPL before the GFDL came into the picture and started a mess. http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLOtherThanSoftware > > 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. fine, as long as you provide it also in an editable format (transparent), since PDF is considered compiled uneditable (opaque). read the license. if you want to publish a PDF free as in beer but not editable, you don't want the GFDL, you probably want Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 2.5 http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/2.5/ > > > > With GPL you also need to provide the source (latex, openoffice, doc, html > > Ah, but with GFDL you have to provide the source too... exactly... you need to think what it is you really want to allow or disallow the recipients to do with your work... -- A choose-your-own adventure Ira Abramov http://ira.abramov.org/email/
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
