Re: gEDA-user: licensing Ronja under GNU FDL

[Steve Meier <smeier@alchemyresearch.com>]

I think a the issues revolved around two areas. They both are in the 
document preamble where you say this document is licenced under the FDL....

The first being the use of invarrient sections.  If you just say nothing 
is invarient then it shouldn't be an issue.

The second which says that version 2 or any other later version... Well 
that assumes that later versions of the fdl license are ok with you. I 
would just reduce that to saying version 2 of fdl and if a later version 
of fdl comes out that is ok with you then update your document.

Steve Meier


Charles Lepple wrote:

> On Mon, 8 Nov 2004 19:33:22 +0000, Karel Kulhavy <clock@twibright.com> wrote:
>  
> > There have been severe disputes over FDL's freeness in Debian community.
> >    
> ...mostly relating to invariant sections, IIRC. Would you declare
> parts of the design to be invariant? How would you feel about people
> translating the assembly instructions?
>
> IANAL, but I don't think the FDL has received as much legal scrutiny
> as the GPL. This is probably due to the notion that most of a
> project's intellectual property is contained in the code, as opposed
> to the documentation, and so the code license is debated and trampled
> on by the lawyers first.
>
>