[Textbook-l] different open content licenses

[Toby Bartels]

Mav wrote in large part:

>Wouter Vanden Hove wrote:

>>I also would like to point out the recent Debian
>>decision to consider the GFDL as a non-free license.

>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.

But anybody can add Invariant Sections.
So if GNU FDL with Invariant Sections is not free,
then GNU FDL without them is not copyleft.

>>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!

Actually, I suspect that most contributors don't care.
I think that you and I, mav, are capable of understanding them. ^_^

>>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.

I agree as well.


-- Toby