Re: Writing GNUstep book on wikibooks

[Jeff Teunissen]

Alex Perez wrote:

> On 7 Sep 2004, MJ Ray wrote:
> 
> > Banlu Kemiyatorn <object@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > I see nothing wrong with the FDL GNUstep book. Please keep in mind
> > > that GNUstep is a project of Free Software Foundation and you _can_
> > > GPL the example code in the GNUstep FDL book.
> >
> > Being in support of free software leads to two logical conclusions:
> > - why support a licence which obstructs free software?
> > - if you are going to GPL the code, you probably want to GPL the
> > description of that code so people can include the explanation in
> > their source code comments if they wish, so where do you draw the
> > line and why not GPL the entire book, because the GPL can be used
> > that way without too much trouble?
> 
> You can also simply dual-license anything written under the FDL under
> the GPL as well. Also, it is my understanding that the FDL 2.0 will not
> be GPL incompatible. All this anal-retentiveness over nothing.

If not for such "anal-retentiveness", as you EVER so charmingly expressed
it, there would be no new FDL...because the current FDL meets the FSF's
requirements for free documentation, which are far less stringent than their
requirements for free software.

It also still remains to be seen as to whether or not there *will* be a new
FDL.

And it's not really all that much about GPL compatibility...the GNU FDL, as
it stands today, is not compatible with any definition of free software,
whether they are the Debian guidelines or the FSF's own.

The difference of opinion between Debian and RMS is that Debian feel that
the documentation should be just as free as the software it documents. The
FSF disagree.

-- 
| Jeff Teunissen  -=-  Pres., Dusk To Dawn Computing  -=-  deek @ d2dc.net
| GPG: 1024D/9840105A   7102 808A 7733 C2F3 097B  161B 9222 DAB8 9840 105A
| Core developer, The QuakeForge Project        http://www.quakeforge.net/
| Specializing in Debian GNU/Linux              http://www.d2dc.net/~deek/