-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 The GNU Free Documentation License, in my opinion is a damn shady license.
The Debian project (where my roots are) long declared the GFDL a non-Free license because it can contain invariant sections that limit Freedom 1 and 3. However, it should be noted that gNewSense uses the GFDL WITHOUT invariant sections, making it without a doubt Free. I think this could open up a can of worms either way. I think it makes sense to back a Free Software Foundation license, used Freely, than to adopt a license not specifically designed for documentation. However, if we see an issue with the GFDL we should also make that noted. It's purely political, but I think using the GFDL when other's flee from it gives us a bit more weight in saying "We think this needs to be changed." My stance, now, is that the GFDL is sub-optimal, but in the scope of gNewSense, there isn't any doubt as to if it's Free. - -Kevin Matthew Flaschen wrote: > Should we follow their lead on this? Our wiki still have relatively > little content, so it wouldn't be that hard to relicense. We may want > to mirror/copy their wiki in the future. CC-BY-SA is a free license, > though not recommended by FSF for documentation. > > Matthew Flaschen -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFGGHbRjbEXCxKVc6YRAkeRAKCrZG8/sbxG6zi5yh8TToPEcPMoQwCfRRow XMQaphCAbxAp0ItD1VHkBVs= =5JwG -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ gNewSense-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnewsense-users
