On Mon, 2008-02-18 at 15:16 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
does not mention GPL etc as
> permissible for documentation though I pretty sure we do ship GPL'ed
> documentation. Perhaps a generic note should be added that what is
> permissible for code is permissible for content (though may or may not
> be suitable).
It's not generally true. The GPL, while used for some documentation, is
a terrible choice. Other licenses are worse, because they explicitly
make references to code. I've purposely not listed the GPL here, because
neither Fedora nor the FSF wants to encourage its usage as a
Right. So why not list GPL specifically as permissible but not recommended?
A related blog post