[okfn-discuss] GFDL updates, compatibility, and confusion

[Benj. Mako Hill]

<quote who="jo at frot.org" date="Wed, May 14, 2008 at 03:27:37AM -0700">
> Understood. Looking at the original writing on "free documentation"
> principles, of which the GFDL is an example, it seems quit clear that 
> GFDL was designed specifically for *technical documentation of software*.
> ( http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-doc.html )

I would go even farther. I would say that it was designed for the
manual for GNU software as published by the Free Software Foundation!

> However I don't see how GFDL 1.2 is considered "free" according to the
> Free Cultural Works Definition ("the license must not limit the
> freedom to distribute a modified version ... regardless of the intent and
> purpose of such modifications.") but that is probably a conversation
> for some other mailing list :)

I think that the definition should probably specify that a work is only
free if it contains no invariant sections. If it is (and most GFDL works
including Wikipedia are) then it really is quite a lot more like BY-SA.

Regards,
Mako

-- 
Benjamin Mako Hill
mako at atdot.cc
http://mako.cc/

Creativity can be a social contribution, but only in so far
as society is free to use the results. --GNU Manifesto
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/okfn-discuss/attachments/20080518/59f6784d/attachment.sig>