Xfce documentation licenses

[Auke Kok]

Brian J. Tarricone wrote:

> James Tappin wrote:
>
>> IIRC the GNU FDL is considered incompatible with the Debian Free 
>> Software
>>
>> Guidelines, which causes problems for having the affected packages in 
>> the
>> main distribution.
>> See http://www.uk.debian.org/News/weekly/2004/38/
>>  
>>
> i will be nice; i will not insult debian.
> i will be nice; i will not insult debian.
> gah!  debian pisses me off.
> never mind.
>
> actually, if you read along, it says that if you add a lines to:
>
>> 1) Allow storage/transmission on encrypted filesystems/links to
>>    counter the "DRM restriction"?
>> 2) Not require forcing distribution of transparent copies with bulk
>>    opaque copies?
>
>
> then it "tentatively" is DFSG-free.  but, amusingly, still 
> GPL-incompatible.
>
> i like their idea to do this instead:
>
>  This document is licensed under the GNU General Public License version
>  2 as published by the Free Software Foundation. References to "object
>  code" and "executables" in the GNU GPL are to be interpreted as the
>  output of any document formatting or typesetting system, including
>  intermediate and printed output.
>
> perhaps we should do that?  or maybe something simpler, like a 
> creative commons attribution-sharealike license?
>
> or maybe we should just leave it the way it is and not care.


0.02$ :

as with patents, this is the proper stand for developers IMO. If someone 
is abusing the original licenses he's bound to step over the boundaries 
of *all* the licenses mentioned.

sofar