Robert Dodier wrote:
> Hi Cliff,
>
> On further consideration, I've decided GPL (same license
> as the software) is most appropriate for new Maxima
> project documents. (Of course, that says nothing about
> documents which are not part of the project.)
Do you mean
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Free_Documentation_License
?
In which case, the wikipedia discussion seems to me
to be pretty damning.
I think the arguments about GPL covering documents
seem to suggest that GPL is inappropriate too, but I
haven't read them recently. Maybe the maxima texinfo or tutorial
or whatever, is not "the same kind of thing??"
Could you explain what you are trying to protect?
Are there examples of many-authored manuals for
complex and changing programs that we could emulate?
e.g. something like CMU Common Lisp? or Wikipedia
(which isn't compatible with GPL, apparently).
RJF
>
> GPL is a suitable document license since it has the
> guarantees we'd like to see (copy/distribute original,
> create and distribute derivative works), and it is not
> limited to software (the GPL reads "This License
> applies to any program or other work ...").
>
> Making documents GPL also makes it possible to
> cut-n-paste from a document into source code and vv.
> That could happen often enough that I'd like to leave the
> door open for it.
>
> Any comments about using GPL as a document license?
>
> All the best, and hope this helps,
> Robert Dodier
>
> _______________________________________________
> Maxima mailing list
> Maxima@math.utexas.edu
> http://www.math.utexas.edu/mailman/listinfo/maxima