Adrian Colomitchi <acolomit...@gmail.com> writes: > 1. there is a distinction between documentation and application software, > even if the distinction is not located in the "bitstreams". > Consequence: I cannot agree with the assertion of "one can treat > documentation the same way as one can treat application (source) code; > therefore, why does one need FDL when GPL is already there?"
That's not an assertion, it seems to be phrased as an assertion. Nevertheless, it *is* incumbent on those proposing the FDL to show why a more restrictive license is appropriate. I've shown that “because the copyright holder decrees that this work won't be used as anything but a document” is not a justification for those restrictions. > In other words, I see the assertion of "FDL is not as free for > documentation as GPL is for application software" as irrelevant The point is rather that the *self-same work* can be both program and documentation – either right now, or in some future derived work. And the copyright holder can't decree when that might be the case in some derived work, so shouldn't be making that decision for future recipients in order to restrict their freedoms. -- \ “Choose mnemonic identifiers. If you can't remember what | `\ mnemonic means, you've got a problem.” —Larry Wall | _o__) | Ben Finney _______________________________________________ Free-software-melb mailing list Freeemail@example.com http://lists.softwarefreedom.com.au/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/free-software-melb Free Software Melbourne home page: http://www.freesoftware.asn.au/melb/