Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:
> On Mon, 2008-02-18 at 15:16 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>> Hi
>>
>>
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing 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
> documentation license.
Right. So why not list GPL specifically as permissible but not recommended?
Fair enough. Done.
~spot