Re: [Savannah-hackers-public] GFDL

[Sylvain Beucler]

MJ, Sanjoy, Francesco,

IMHO a secondary section cannot be that easily by-passed, but indeed
I'm not a lawyer. Also don't confuse preventing addition of 'global
warming' statements in derivates versions and accepting such changes
in a project manual.
I think the maintainer of a project is constantly faced to situations
where a person want him to switch licenses in order to accept his
contributions, and the maintainer does not _have_ to accept such
contribution, whatever license / invariant section is involved (for
example rejecting MPL-only code in the Mozilla project).

Similarly we would like Texinfo documents at Savannah to be compatible
with the GNU manuals. This is something we can't achieve if we accept
GNU GPL manuals. We do not impose a particular license, just
compatibility, and we'd rather have people release such manuals under
_at least_ the GFDL rather than not being able to reuse them at
all. We also require the GFDL'd documents to be version 1.2 or any
later version so that any issue that can be found in the current
version of this license will be fixed with the next one.

In this regard, I asked what is the preferred way to send concerns
about the GFDL in general. address@hidden would be glad to receive
comments and use them for work on GFDL revision 3. DRM criticism about
the GNU GPLv3 draft would probably also be useful in this aim.


This is not about accepting a non-free license (the GFDL is a free
documentation license), and this is not about rejecting free software
at Savannah (we already do so by rejecting ASL'd software - until GNU
GPLv3 is out, that is :)).


Incidentally a dozen of existing Savannah projects Texinfo manuals are
under the GNU GPL and hence affected by this.

-- 
Sylvain