Re: [Savannah-hackers-public] status of documentation licenses

[Sylvain Beucler]

We had 0 time to work on it, except answering questions from people.

We also wait an answer from RMS about litterate programming.

-- 
Sylvain

On Fri, Mar 03, 2006 at 06:48:42PM -0600, Karl Berry wrote:
> (Repeating my message from a few days ago.)
> 
> Hi Sylvain and all,
> 
> (Switching to -public since I don't see that this stuff is secret.)
> 
> Can you tell me where we stand with all this?  We were just getting
> going when I had to be away ... rms wanted to get a status update.
> 
> Thanks,
> k
> 
> Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2006 23:40:15 -0500
> From: "Richard M. Stallman" <address@hidden>
> To: Sylvain Beucler <address@hidden>, address@hidden
> CC: address@hidden
> cc: address@hidden
> Subject: Re: [Savannah-hackers-private] Documentation licenses
> 
>     old-style GNU manual license / simple copyleft:
>     ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>     ~100
> 
> We should ask them to upgrade.  These old-style licenses
> are incompatible with everything else.
> 
>     missing / unclear:
>     ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> 
> We should ask them to put on clear notices about use of the GNU FDL.
> 
>     ghostscript/ghostscript/doc/ghostscript.texi (GNU)
>     gv/gv/doc/gv.texi (GNU)
>     hyperbole/hyperbole/man/hyperbole.texi (GNU)
>     sather (GNU)
> 
> We should ask them to convert to the GFDL.
> In the case of Ghostscript, we may have to replace the manual.
> That may take time--it is not rush.
> 
> We need not bother the existing non-GNU packages with GPL'd manuals.
> What we need to do is make sure there will not be any additional
> ones in the future.  This means, first of all, putting a clear statement
> in the policies so that new projects will know that manuals must have
> licenses compatible with "GFDL version N or later".
> 
> Karl, can you work on these three things with the Savannah people?
> I expect it to take some time to do them all.
> 
>