Re: [gNewSense-users] [Fwd: Licensing of the Ubuntu Documentation Wiki] - Should gnewsense also change to CC-BY-SA

[Kevin M. Dean]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

The GNU Free Documentation License, in my opinion is a damn shady license.

The Debian project (where my roots are) long declared the GFDL a
non-Free license because it can contain invariant sections that limit
Freedom 1 and 3.

However, it should be noted that gNewSense uses the GFDL WITHOUT
invariant sections, making it without a doubt Free.

I think this could open up a can of worms either way. I think it makes
sense to back a Free Software Foundation license, used Freely, than to
adopt a license not specifically designed for documentation. However, if
we see an issue with the GFDL we should also make that noted.

It's purely political, but I think using the GFDL when other's flee from
it gives us a bit more weight in saying "We think this needs to be changed."

My stance, now, is that the GFDL is sub-optimal, but in the scope of
gNewSense, there isn't any doubt as to if it's Free.

- -Kevin

Matthew Flaschen wrote:
> Should we follow their lead on this?  Our wiki still have relatively
> little content, so it wouldn't be that hard to relicense.  We may want
> to mirror/copy their wiki in the future.  CC-BY-SA is a free license,
> though not recommended by FSF for documentation.
> 
> Matthew Flaschen
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFGGHbRjbEXCxKVc6YRAkeRAKCrZG8/sbxG6zi5yh8TToPEcPMoQwCfRRow
XMQaphCAbxAp0ItD1VHkBVs=
=5JwG
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----