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
Free-software-melb@lists.softwarefreedom.com.au
http://lists.softwarefreedom.com.au/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/free-software-melb


Free Software Melbourne home page: http://www.freesoftware.asn.au/melb/

Reply via email to