Re: [Bug-gnulib] COPYING

[Karl Berry]

    bruno> In September I suggested that documentation could also be dually
    bruno> licensed under GPL and GFDL.

    bruno> It has now been confirmed that this is acceptable by
    [David Novalis].
    ...
    
    Novalis> Of course, manual authors are free to grant such
    Novalis> permissions if they disagree.

I very much doubt Novalis intended to make a GNU policy change in such a
casual way, or that he has the power to make it, for that matter.  I
interpret his stence as talking about authors' powers in the abstract.

If you want to be clear on whether it is ok to dual-license manuals,
propose a change to maintain.texi to rms.  In particular, the sentence:

  Manuals should use the GNU Free Documentation License.  

would need to be amended.

Personally, I would be happy if such dual-licensing was allowed for GNU
Project manuals, but I don't wish to debate it with rms.  My various
attempts to bring it up with both him and novalis have been soundly
rebuffed (as just seen), without even a hint of agreeing that there is
the slightest problem with the GFDL in the first place.

k