Subject: Re: For Approval: MN Open Documentation License 1.0
From: Thorsten Glaser <tg@66h.42h.de>
Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2004 20:00:35 +0000 (UTC)

Michal Nazarewicz dixit:

>Most of it is based on the [FDL] and [GPL] though parts from [LGPL] and 
>[AFL] are present as well
...
>>  [FDL] Section 2, Paragraph 1. Identical.

Now the FSF could sue you for copyright infringement on their licence
texts... they actually forbid you to take the text and modify it.

Except of course you'd got the permission.

>     If  your document  contains nontrivial  examples of  program  code, we

we? Pluralis Maiestatis? ;)

-

Now, seriously: what is wrong with using BSD, LGPL or GPL for
documentation as well? Especially when parts of it are auto-
generated from the code, such as it's the case with GNU lib-
iberty, this is pretty much a "must".

And the FSF just started the FDL to further restrict what the
redistributors can do with their manuals, in order to be able
to further publish their political (the GNU manifesto) and
"ethical" (must not obstruct) goals - ironically, their use of
invariant sections and cover texts is against the ethics that
everything should be free as in GNU, i.e. freely modifiable as
well.

Just my 0.05 EUR (the inflation)
//mirabile