Re: [ode] [rms@gnu.org: Re: Updating the OpenContent license]


Richard Stallman (rms@gnu.org)
Sun, 23 Jan 2000 23:16:42 -0700 (MST)


    What is common for software does not necessarily have any relevance to
    documentation. Software and documentation have very different purposes
    and audiences.

For this particular issue, the differences between software and
documentation are not crucial. This issue is the same for any kind of
work. If the work contains only some sort of reference to the
license, instead of the license itself, then over the years the
reference could cease to be valid; then people who have copies will
not be able to find out what they are allowed to do with them.

Software and its documentation have approximately the same audience,
because the people who read the documentation are mostly those who use
the software. But even if the audiences were different I don't think
it would affect this issue.

I cited free software licenses as examples of the usual practice
because that was the first thing that came to mind. But I think I
could say the same thing about free software documentation. It is
normal for the license to be included in the work. That is done for
all GNU manuals, and other GNU documentation files, and all the other
manuals I recall seeing.

I've explained the reasons why I have put this requirement into the
GNU Free Documentation License. You're entitled to your opinion on
the question; if we don't agree now, we may have to agree disagree.



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Mon Jan 24 2000 - 02:21:53 EST