On Sun, May 05, 2002 at 12:41:48AM +0200, Tomasz Wegrzanowski wrote:
On Sun, May 05, 2002 at 12:40:40AM +0200, Jeroen Dekkers wrote:
On Sat, May 04, 2002 at 11:33:46PM +0200, Tomasz Wegrzanowski wrote:
No, it's not. DFSG is perfect, it's GFDL what is flawed.
No, the first flaw of the DFSG is that it only goes about software and not about documentation.
There was always lot of documentation in Debian.
I've read part of the discussion.
If FSF didn't introduce completely broken GFDL, it would all be alright.
It isn't broken, it's a good license, only the reasoning might be difficult to understand.
GFDL with "invariant sections" or some "front/back cover" things is proprietary license.
It isn't, it only takes away freedoms you can't do anything useful
Not having to publish crap is something very useful.
Why?
with and is generally only abused. The same does the GPL.
Have you ever worked with open/free documentation ?
I work with it on a dialy base. Most of the documenation I work with is under the GNU FDL.
It would completely destroy Wikipedia if we allowed some 'invariant sections'.
Why? What's wrong with an invariant section telling why wikipedia was created? Or to raise money for the project?
Jeroen Dekkers