discuss: [fdfl & debian guys]
Subject:
Re: [fdfl & debian guys]
From:
Colin Watson ####@####.####
Date:
23 Apr 2003 09:54:58 -0000
Message-Id: <20030423095455.GG12808@riva.ucam.org>
On Tue, Apr 22, 2003 at 08:28:50PM -0600, John Fleck wrote:
> On Tue, 2003-04-22 at 12:24, Colin Watson wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 22, 2003 at 07:35:58AM -0600, John Fleck wrote:
> > > Does this help given that the standard license declaration used in many
> > > LDP docs states:
> > >
> > > "Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document
> > > under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.1
> > > or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation...."
> > > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >
> > Yes. People redistributing documents under GFDL 1.1 are not obliged to
> > use the latest version, although they may choose to do so. Anyone who
> > has a problem with version 1.2 can simply use 1.1.
>
> Sorry, I didn't explain myself very well. What I meant to be saying (or
> maybe what I meant to be asking?) is if I have a problem with 1.2 and
> therefore use 1.1, doesn't the "or any later version" bit allow anyone
> to use 1.2 on it if they choose anyway?
OK, that's a different issue from the one at the start of this thread.
Yes, it would, although authors can always delete the "or any later
version" clause if they want. This has been done with the analogous
clause in the GPL.
Cheers,
--
Colin Watson ####@####.####
