RE: gnome summary

[Gregory Leblanc <GLeblanc cu-portland edu>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Havoc Pennington [mailto:hp@redhat.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 1999 7:48 PM
> To: Jochem Huhmann
> Subject: Re: gnome summary
>
> Also, the GPL is inappropriate for documentation; there are 
> far too many
> docs under the GPL, which makes no sense. The FSF does not 

Aren't most of the docs on www.linuxdoc.org GPL'ed?  

> even GPL its
> docs, though the docs are under a free license. The GPL mentions
> _software_ explicitly, you can't expect courts to apply it to docs via
> some weird metaphorical extension. You want a free license 
> for docs but
> the GPL is not it.
> 
> So, in short: 
>  - Use OPL or the FSF's documentation license for technical manuals
>    Do not use GPL

I haven't looked yet (about to do that) but I'm assuming that the FSF's
documentation license is on their web page.  Anybody have a handy URL for
OPL?  While I'm on the topic, anybody know where I can get a copy of the
MPL?  Some part of ELKS (Embeded Linux Kernel System) is using that, and I'd
like to read the license at some point.

>  - There is no rational reason I can think of why non-technical texts
>    should be freely modifiable
> 
> Sorry, this confusion is just a peeve of mine. :-)

I can see that being a peeeve.  I'm used to reading licenses since that's a
big part of my job, so I can translate into normal speak for anybody who
need that. 
	Greg.