My concerns about GPLv3 process

Werner Koch wk at
Tue Jan 31 11:35:17 UTC 2006

On Tue, 31 Jan 2006 10:34:27 +0100, Alfred M\ Szmidt said:

> Force and force... GNU maintainers agreed to follow the policies of
> the GNU project, this is no different than say a Debian maintainer

As long as they make sense; the GFDL does not make any sense.  Nobody
at the FSF addressed the serious concerns many of us have with the
GFDL.  In fact the GFDL hinders development of free documentation.

> I strongly doubt that the two have anything in relation.

The GFDL has been written with publishers in mind; look at the terms:
most make sense only for woodware.  And later the own publishing
branch ceases work?  Have you seen any change on ORA's licenses?  I
consider the GFDL a compelete failure and I would really like to see
how the new draft addresses all the problems.

> clarifications (and simplifications, I find the license to long and to
> complex), but none that are so grave that it is more important than

I can't grab a single short text from the very good glibc manual and
use it with other projects - unless I add a bunch of useless
attachments.  It is simply not designed for sharing.  The GPL might be
inconvenient for a publisher but it works far better for

I agree that plain texts are very different to software but
documentation is clearly part of the code - at least it should be for
any well written code.



More information about the Discussion mailing list