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
