On Mon, Jun 02, 2003 at 09:07:32AM +0200, Marco Krohn wrote:
On Monday 02 June 2003 01:19, Erik Moeller wrote:
I didn't choose the FDL, and I wouldn't.
If it wasn't so hard to change
licenses, we might have already switched to Creative Commons style
copyleft or something similar. I am increasingly coming to the conclusion
that the FDL is unsuitable for online publications. Even the Debian
project rejects it. For my own textual projects, I use the public domain.
The GNU project should stick to software licenses.
Just to avoid a misunderstanding: the Debian project rejects the GFDL mainly
because of the "invariant section" (as far as I understood it). So GFDL is,
according to them, "not free enough". FWIW,
GFDL contains basic licensing scheme which Debian fully accepts
and some "extensions" that are obiously non-free - invariant sections,
front cover texts and back cover texts. GFDL document without those
is perfectly ok for Debian.