[Textbook-l] different open content licenses

[Daniel Mayer]

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

>can read the archives here:
>http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/

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