Re: [Savannah-hackers-public] [gnu.org #2110556] Savannah hosting requirements on documentation license

[Jing Luo]

On 2024-10-29 23:42, Krzysztof Siewicz via RT wrote:
> On Sun Oct 27 02:57:57 2024, jing@jing.rocks wrote:
>
> > > Please let me know if I'm missing something. I would definitely want to
> > > know more why you need compatibility between license for documentation
> > > and license for code. I think (but maybe I'm mistaken) that this would
> > > matter if code and documentation were intended to be combined into a
> > > single work. For joint distribution of code alongside documentation
> > > license compatibility is not necessary. I'm open for counter-arguments,
> > > though.
> >
> > A notable example of "code and documentation were intended to be
> > combined into a single work" is manpages. E.g. debian policy requires
> > that every executable must come with a manpage (hence trisquel does
> > too), otherwise such package will be rejected by debian.
>
> Please excuse my ignorance, but what is this combination in case of 
> manpages? Is it formatting text in nroff format?

Ah yes, but I was talking about packages using  help2man to generate a 
manpage [1].

[1] https://www.gnu.org/software/help2man/

In any case, my point is that if we don't insist FDL compat for docs, we 
can save a lot of trouble without making a moral compromise.

--
Jing Luo
About me: https://jing.rocks/about/
GPG Fingerprint: 4E09 8D19 00AA 3F72 1899 2614 09B3 316E 13A1 1EFC

signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature