[[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider ]]]
[[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies, ]]]
[[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]
> "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.
There are two questions here:
1. What do those words mean?
2. What should our policy be?
1. Ineiev is right about the meaning of those words.
To wtate explicitly that some options are acceptable
is to imply that the rest of the options are not acceptable.
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; 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?)
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.
--
Dr Richard Stallman (https://stallman.org)
Chief GNUisance of the GNU Project (https://gnu.org)
Founder, Free Software Foundation (https://fsf.org)
Internet Hall-of-Famer (https://internethalloffame.org)
