--- Yavor Doganov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I urge you to inform [EMAIL PROTECTED] about your > concerns regarding > GNU FDL. Some of them are real, because the license > was written > mainly with Texinfo in mind, and some of them are > moot based on the > FUD that various people spread on this matter.
The list of problems encountered with the GFDL has been on the Mallard wiki page for months: http://live.gnome.org/ProjectMallard and in our mail archives for even longer. > Inventing yet another > license just because some insignificiant part of the > Free Software > community hates GFDL doesn't seem like the right > approach for me. RMS > has mentioned several times that the GFDL will be > revisited once the > new GPL/LGPL is out. An ETA on that? > Also, remember that GNOME is part of the GNU Project > and ought to > follow the main rules and recommendations. If they > are unsuitable for > the purpose in question, this has to be addressed > properly and fixed, Yes. As I said, it's rather ironic. It does seem entirely logical that GNOME, a GNU project, should use the GFDL, a GNU licence. Perhaps the GNU project could take heed of the apparent problems with the GFDL, and either cut through the FUD with authority or address the problems, as appropriate. ___________________________________________________________ Yahoo! Messenger - with free PC-PC calling and photo sharing. http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ gnome-doc-list mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-doc-list
