The GPL was designed for programs; it contains lots of complex clauses that are crucial for programs, but that would be cumbersome and unnecessary for a book or manual. For instance, anyone publishing the book on paper would have to either include machine-readable "source code" of the book along with each printed copy, or provide a written offer to send the "source code" later.
Meanwhile, the GFDL has clauses that help publishers of free manuals make a profit from selling copies--cover texts, for instance. The special rules for Endorsements sections make it possible to use the GFDL for an official standard. This would permit modified versions, but they could not be labeled as "the standard".
Using the GFDL, we permit changes in the text of a manual that covers its technical topic. It is important to be able to change the technical parts, because people who change a program ought to change the documentation to correspond. The freedom to do this is an ethical imperative.
Our manuals also include sections that state our political position about free software. We mark these as "invariant", so that they cannot be changed or removed. The GFDL makes provisions for these "invariant sections".
I guess for dictionary GPL is good enough though I was thinking general manuals
Ely
Quoting E L, from the post of Mon, 17 Oct:
> Hey,
> It seem that the person who told me about the license misinterpeted the fact
> the docs are still in debian
> as a sign that it correlate with the DFSG. It seem he was assume like few
> other debian people that if it's GPL compatible
> it's DFSG free.
>
> *sigh* and I was so happy to finally find a license....
sorry for barging in, but what's wrong with the GPL itself?
--
Hunter/Gatherer
Ira Abramov
http://ira.abramov.org/email/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: for information see http://ira.abramov.org/pgp
iD8DBQFDVCApMcwyzvePPuQRAjFsAJ4uKoQGla58nSFfyqz4mAgoQXUArgCg5pE+
F0OLc0rrcOZaNwXEdnfZZRw=
=VmuX
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
