Re: [Texmacs-dev] GNU FSL and Debian FDL conflict

[Alvaro Tejero Cantero]

I have followed a bit the issue (though the threads of the Branden
Robinson - RMS conflict get a bit flamy) and are concerned about the
consequences, since Alqua has published GFDL'd documents.

At this stage there should be some people in a committee trying to get
to something reasonable. I agree with David in that what Debian does is
*really* important, at the level of the FSF. So, what to do?

- GPL is not bad for documentation if you don't plan to sell printed
TeXmacs manuals. After all, all those clumsy clauses in GFDL are there
for you to be able to impose an advertising burden on any one who dares
publish commercially a manual written by you without reaching an
arrangement with you: they are obliged to put the cover and backcover
texts as well as to preserve the Invariant sections.

- There are other licenses, some more obscure (such as the Design
Science License) and others more generally known and very well
supported. I'm referring here to CreativeCommons licenses
(http://creativecommons.org) . The equivalent to GFDL would be an
attribution share alike license (that is, attribution must be
recognized, and changes disseminated under the same terms --copyleft).
The unknown here is to what point the GNU people would be upset by GNU
TeXmacs using a non-GNU license.

Personally I am waiting till the whole mess between Debian and FSF
settles down before taking a decision.


á.

-- 
Álvaro Tejero Cantero

http://alqua.com    --  documentos libres
                        free documents