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

[Stephen J. Turnbull]

>>>>> "Ludovic" == Ludovic Courtès <address@hidden> writes:

    Ludovic> Hi, "Stephen J. Turnbull" <address@hidden> writes:

    >> So I think the recommended license for documentation should be
    >> a software license, not a hardcopy license.

    Ludovic> IANAL, but isn't the documentation (the tutorial) more
    Ludovic> likely to be distributed in printed form than to be
    Ludovic> included within the source code?

Yes, I suppose, but it would be very easy to translate the whole
tutorial to interactive form, so wholesale inclusion in a program is
not at all unlikely.

But turn it around.  We know what the problems are from use of
multiple copyleft licenses, even across projects.  Why open ourselves
up to them in a single project?  What are the benefits to the Arch
project from use of the FDL?

AFAICS it's simply a knee-jerk thing: the FSF recommends the FDL, so
we should use it.  Supporting the FSF _is_ a valid reason, but is it
enough, given the problems?  If not, what other reasons are there?

The only one I can think of is the anti-DRM clause, and Arch will
eventually move to GPLv3[1], making the point moot.

Footnotes: 
[1]  Granted, I'm not a fan of the initial draft.  Don't be distracted
by that: GPL, and the to-be-published version of GPLv3, are
undoubtedly the right licenses for Arch, for many reasons.

-- 
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.