Hello licensing team,I hate to bother you with new work, but this time I would really like your clarification on savannah's hosting requirements, where Ineiev disagreed with me on a non-gnu group review:
On 2024-10-08 02:40, Ineiev wrote:
Follow-up Comment #4, task #16589 (group administration):
[...]
> (5) GFDL: the documentations have "GFDL" on the footer, but the > license text is not included anywhere. Also, we require "or later", > so you need to change them to something like "FDL1.3+". > Alternatively, it's perfectly fine for documentations to have the > same license as the code (GPLv2+).Savannah hosting requirements for the documentation is to be released underGFDL-compatible terms. GPLv2+ isn't GFDL-compatible. [...] <https://savannah.nongnu.org/task/?16589>.
The exact words on the hosting requirements [1] for documentation is:"For manuals, we recommend GNU FDL version X-or-later, where X is the latest released version of the FDL; other licensing compatible with that is acceptable."
My impression is that this sentence does not _require_ documentation to be licensed under FDL1.3+ or something compatible with FDL1.3+, it is only a recommendation. If my impression was wrong, in my not so humble opinion, this requirement would be very unreasonable, and we should reconsider it. We already have many gnu and non-gnu groups in savannah that use the same license for code and docs; and a documentation licensed under GPL is certainly libre, I don't see any ethical reason to object that. Once a certain philosopher suggested on a mailing list that a particular manual should be relicensed to GPLv3+, or CC-BY-SA [2].
[1] https://savannah.gnu.org/register/requirements.php[2] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/private/www-discuss/2024-January/016589.html
Lukewarm regards, -- 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
