Re: [Savannah-hackers-public] Savannah hosting requirements on documentation license (was: Re: [task #16589] Submission of P2P Social Network Pandora)

[Ineiev]

On Fri, Oct 11, 2024 at 11:16:48PM -0400, Richard Stallman wrote:
...
> 2. Should we change this policy?  That question is harder.
> >From what you've said 
> 
>     We already have many gnu and non-gnu groups in savannah 
>     that use the same license for code and docs;

That doesn't mean they release their documentation
in FDL-incompatible ways; permissive licenses may be both
GPL- and FDL-compatible.

>     and a documentation 
>     licensed under GPL is certainly libre,
> 
> there are already many packages that use a code license for
> the documentation.  (How many are there?  How many of them
> are GNU packages?)

I don't think there are really many packages with FDL-incompatible
documentation; at least, for the latest 10 years or so no such
package has been approved.

> We recommend the FDL because that works better for distributing
> printed manuals.  But with many instances already of packages
> that use the code license for the documentation too, maybe
> we should decide that that is ok.

I think one point to consider is coherency with GNU: non-GNU
Savannah was provided for hosting to serve as a place where
GNU packages could take code and documentation from; currently,
GNU policies include using FDL for manuals, so for that idea
to work, the documentation of packages hosted on non-GNU Savannah
should also be FDL-compatible... or the GNU Project could
reconsider its policies about the documentation.

signature.asc
Description: PGP signature