On Tue, 31 Jan 2006 10:34:27 +0100, Alfred M\ Szmidt said:
Force and force... GNU maintainers agreed to follow the policies of the GNU project, this is no different than say a Debian maintainer
As long as they make sense; the GFDL does not make any sense. Nobody at the FSF addressed the serious concerns many of us have with the GFDL. In fact the GFDL hinders development of free documentation.
I strongly doubt that the two have anything in relation.
The GFDL has been written with publishers in mind; look at the terms: most make sense only for woodware. And later the own publishing branch ceases work? Have you seen any change on ORA's licenses? I consider the GFDL a compelete failure and I would really like to see how the new draft addresses all the problems.
clarifications (and simplifications, I find the license to long and to complex), but none that are so grave that it is more important than
I can't grab a single short text from the very good glibc manual and use it with other projects - unless I add a bunch of useless attachments. It is simply not designed for sharing. The GPL might be inconvenient for a publisher but it works far better for documentation.
I agree that plain texts are very different to software but documentation is clearly part of the code - at least it should be for any well written code.
Shalom-Salam,
Werner