[Preston] GFDL not free?

Fri Nov 21 13:08:29 GMT 2003

Note to self - Don't send e-mails after many beers...

Open sharing of documentation is the only way to do things. I work in
data networks, and there is nothing worse than something not being doc'd
when it breaks, and the person who built it coincidentally being on
leave.

I don't think Stallman would push something anti-free after he's been
working so long for free software. And not just open source, but FREE
software. The story of him starting to code all the gnu utilities etc
makes the guy sound crazy. Also, I thought the hurd kernel was the
ultimate goal of GNU - the final piece in the complete free OS. Linux
kernel just happened before HURD matured. So surely hurd devs are gnu
people? What we actually use day to day is GNU/linux?

I don't know?

Off to build gentoo on a 486. that'll keep me quiet.

Anyone ever played with mythtv? I got it working but wanna use a digi
card (like wintv nova-t).

Later all...

-----Original Message-----
From: preston-bounces at mailman.lug.org.uk
[mailto:preston-bounces at mailman.lug.org.uk] On Behalf Of Garry Taylor
Sent: 21 November 2003 09:48
To: preston at mailman.lug.org.uk
Subject: Re: [Preston] GFDL not free?

One of the things I find most useful about Linux computers are the range
of documentation available. For a person that helps them-selves
documentation is a must.
I am a lecturer and find that documentation is something stored in
peoples home area and hidden away (for the own's use only). I find this
approach stupid any uneffective. As with Open Source software there is
open source documentation; as we all know this means higher quality,
faster improvements and a sense of well being.

If this line is true, I don't think it is:
"Richard Stallman is pushing an anti-free license for documentation."
Ref: 
http://lists.softwarelibero.it/pipermail/discussioni/2003-November/00846
5.html

Then I now agree that Richard truly is insane. I teach Linux and find
that because of free documentation I can concentrate on teaching and not
writing documentation.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------
Confidentiality:  This e-mail and its attachments are intended for the
above named only and may be confidential.  If they have come to you in
error you must take no action based on them, nor must you copy or show
them to anyone; please reply to this e-mail and highlight the error.

Security Warning:  Please note that this e-mail has been created in the
knowledge that Internet e-mail is not a 100% secure communications
medium.  We advise that you understand and observe this lack of security
when e-mailing us.

Viruses:  Although we have taken steps to ensure that this e-mail and
attachments are free from any virus, we advise that in keeping with good
computing practice the recipient should ensure they are actually virus
free.

>>> matthew at agrip.org.uk 11/20/03 09:22pm >>>
'ellow,

I was hoping to make it to the last meeting but was unable to at the
last minute.  I will try and get to the next one.  Seeing as it was
about shell scripting, I thought I'd mention that I have made a few
scripts over the past few months that may be of use to people on the
list.  I am improving and testing them atm but when they're done I'll
post about it.  One of them is for cleaning out your home directory,
another for changing permissions on large trees of files/dirs. 
Anyway,
my post was actually about this...

I have just read a posting by Thomas Bushnell (of HURD fame).  He
spoke
out against the GFDL because he believes the licence is essentially
not
free (in the GNU sense).  Then RMS ``dismissed'' him as HURD
maintainer.

Its not this disagreement per se that made me e-mail about this - it
is
that I am now concerned about using the GFDL as a licence for the
documentation I am (and will be) producing to go along with GPL'd
software.

I am concerned because I want my software to go into Debian eventually
but it says in that mail that Debian won't distribute GFDL'd manuals. 
I
am not using any ``Invariant Sections'' in my manual so I think it
might
not be all that bad, but I don't like the idea that you can't copy
code
from a GFDL'd manual into GPL'd software.  The post also mentions
restrictions on the formats you have to produce your manual in, but I
never picked up on that when reading the GFDL.

Here is the posting I read:
http://lists.softwarelibero.it/pipermail/discussioni/2003-November/00846
5.html

I'm just wondering what your thoughts on this are, really.  If any of
you have had much experience (good or bad) with the GFDL I'd like to
know about it.  I have already released some stuff under the GFDL but
as
I am the author/copyright holder I don't suppose it would be a problem
for me to re-release under the GPL or some other licence instead.

Sorry to post about what is essentially a news-type story.  I just
thought that a Linux user list would be a good place to get advice on
free licences :-).  Thanks in advance for your views,

bye just now,

-- 
Matthew T. Atkinson <matthew at agrip.org.uk>

_______________________________________________
Preston mailing list
Preston at mailman.lug.org.uk 
http://mailman.lug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/preston

_______________________________________________
Preston mailing list
Preston at mailman.lug.org.uk
http://mailman.lug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/preston