Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Reviving "arch Meets Hello World"

[Stephen J. Turnbull]

>>>>> "Andy" == Andy Tai <address@hidden> writes:

    Andy> If you produce new documentation, I would request that you
    Andy> put it dual licensed under both the GNU GPL and the GNU FDL
    Andy> so we can satisfy the Debian people...

Make things simple---recommend GPL all the way.

Why FDL at all?  From the point of view of software freedom, FDL only
makes sense for printed books.  Anything electronic, you might want to
copy and paste into code.  Being strong copyleft, the FDL does not
support that: according to rms, it is not a free software license and
it is prima facie not GPL-compatible.  So making the FDL an option
simply allows people to prevent use of their modified GNU Arch
documentation in GNU Arch itself by deriving under the FDL and
removing the GPL permissions.

If Tom wanted it, that would be a good reason.  But last I heard, Tom
had conceded that the FDL did very little for him, and caused
gratuitous problems with Debian and other 3rd-party distribution.  So
I think the recommended license for documentation should be a software
license, not a hardcopy license.

Of course individual authors are welcome to do what they like, and the
project can decide case by case whether to accept their conditions.
But I don't think it is in the interest of the GNU Arch project to use
the FDL.

-- 
School of Systems and Information Engineering http://turnbull.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp
University of Tsukuba                    Tennodai 1-1-1 Tsukuba 305-8573 JAPAN
               Ask not how you can "do" free software business;
              ask what your business can "do for" free software.