discuss: Documentation licensing
Subject:
Re: Documentation Licensing
From:
David Jao ####@####.####
Date:
8 Apr 2004 03:15:52 -0000
Message-Id: <1081394144.13212.134.camel@t2.dominia.org>
Quoting Rick Moen ####@####.####
> I'm surprised that you say so, since the problems go very far beyond
> that. For example, derivative works not only must retain the invariant
> sections unchanged, but also may not address the same topic the
> invariant section covers.
Where in the GNU FDL does it state that derivative works may not address
the same topic as an Invariant section?
I read the FDL pretty thoroughly (or at least I thought I did), and
while I saw several restrictions against _titling_ a new section to
conflict with an Invariant section, I did not see any restrictions
against addressing the topic of an Invariant section.
> Personal opinion: Introduce GFDL 1.2-covered works today --
> especially any with invariant sections, and TLDP will regret it
> tomorrow.
It's a little too late for that --
http://www.tldp.org/LDP/LDP-Author-Guide/html/doc-licensing.html already
cites GNU FDL as the first recommended license, and
http://www.tldp.org/authors/template/Sample-HOWTO.html defaults to GNU
FDL 1.1.
I am interested in why you single out GFDL 1.2 given that GFDL 1.1 is
more common on TLDP than 1.2. Is version 1.2 spectacularly worse than
1.1 in some major way that escaped my notice?
-David
