Re: [Savannah-hackers-public] News: Licenses clarification

[Sylvain Beucler]

On Sat, Feb 18, 2006 at 02:40:09PM -0800, Walter Landry wrote:
> Sylvain Beucler <address@hidden> wrote:
> > > Greetings,
> > > 
> > > I am the project manager for ArX [1].  I read the news about licenses
> > > clarification, and I have two comments/questions.
> > > 
> > >   1) My code has always been under GPL v2 only.  This was noted when I
> > >      applied to savannah [2].  Is this going to be a problem?
> > 
> > Yes, if you die before GNU GPL v3 is released.
> 
> I don't understand what you mean here.  I am not the only copyright
> holder.

Then there will be a problem anytime a GNU GPLv3 project want to
include code from yours, because GNU GPLv3 will most likely not be
compatible with v2.

> > However this requirement applies to new projects only.
> > 
> > 
> > >   2) My project includes a 56 page manual under GPL v2 only.  The only
> > >      license I will use for documentation is the same as for the code.
> > >      Since even RMS does not think that the GFDL is a free software
> > >      license [3], that rules out the GFDL.
> > 
> > This is a borderline case since the source for the manual is not
> > hosted at Savannah, but the manual is still available at
> > www.nongnu.org.
> 
> The manual's source is available in the tarball available from Savannah.
> 
> > Is there a precise reason why the manual's license is bound to ArX's?
> 
> Because I want to be able to intermix code and documentation.

What do you mean by intermix?

For example if you want to include bits of text from the manual in the
program output, you can do so by fetching the text at run time
independently of the licenses.

-- 
Sylvain