Wouter Vanden Hove wrote:
...
I also would like to point out the recent Debian
decision to consider the GFDL as a non-free license.
This has been debated for months on debian-legal. You
Side note: They only consider GFDLd text to be
"non-free" when "Invariant Sections", "Cover Texts",
"Acknowledgements", and/or "Dedications" (all GFDL
options) are used. We don't use any of those so our
text is free content.
:>Lessig:.. The one thing the FDL has failed to do, as
:>has the GPL, is to enable a semantic web-like
:>architecture that encourages machine-readable
:>expressions of freedoms. That=A2s the core
:>commitment of the Creative Commons.
Heh? What is a "machine-readable expression of
freedom" and why is that an important thing to have? I
guess I'll have to do some more reading....
I think it would be a confusing thing to create a
licensing difference between the Wikipedia
Encyclopedia and the Wikimedia Textbook Project
now.
Amen to that!
The discussion between FSF and Creative Commons and
some other license authors can, and probably will, be
time consuming. I don't think the Textbook Project
needs to wait for a solution in order to advance.
Yep - I completely agree.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com