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).

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?