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