discuss: Documentation licensing
Subject:
Re: Documentation Licensing
From:
Rick Moen ####@####.####
Date:
14 Apr 2004 07:51:34 -0000
Message-Id: <20040414075132.GP19884@linuxmafia.com>
Quoting Rahul Sundaram ####@####.####
> Yes. I did read that too but after discussing the licensing issues
> with a few debian people I think that creative commons license is
> still a better choice than gnu fdl
Moreover, I would speculate that CC's comment almost certainly reflects
the reaction practically everyone had for a long while: "Since it's
going to be from the FSF, GFDL's bound to be a good bet. Let's just
recommend it on faith until we've had a chance (and reason) to study it
further."
http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://creativecommons.org/learn/licenses/
makes clear that the comment in question was posted to that page some
time early last year (2003). Serious analysis and criticism of the GFDL
didn't really spread until _late_ last year. More than likely, the CC
people haven't gotten around to revisiting the question -- and may have
even forgotten they said it.
(On the other hand, they might have some reason to _still_ seriously
hold that view. Anyone who thinks that's likely might want to ask
them. My experience is that they're really slow to rewrite material on
their Web site even when such is needed. And there's an outside chance
that they've not even heard of any controversy. Best to ask.)
--
Cheers, The cynics among us might say: "We laugh,
Rick Moen monkeyboys -- Linux IS the mainstream UNIX now!
####@####.#### MuaHaHaHa!" but that would be rude. -- Jim Dennis
