Re: [Fwd: Re: Bug#304316: section non-free/doc]
On Sun, Apr 24, 2005 at 05:39:19PM -0700, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> As I see it, the individuals who assigned their copyright in GNU
> documentation to the FSF probably didn't expect to see the relicensing
> of their work under a GPL-incompatible license, creating yet another
> "gated community" carved out of the ostensible commons. In my
Has the FSF ever licensed documentation under a GPL-compatible license?
I don't think the old GNU documentation license was GPL-compatible,
either.
Fundamentally, all "viral" licenses--that is, all licenses that require
the preservation of all permissions, which is to say GPL#6's "You may
not impose ..."--are mutually incompatible by nature. It's a basic,
unavoidable problem with the concept (the GPL is "unneighborly" by
design), I think: the only way to make a work compatible with more than
one is dual-licensing, or by "upgrade clauses" (like the LGPL's) which
are usually one-way gates.
I just point this out to be fair to the GFDL: GPL-incompatibility is
fairly inherent. I think the right fix would have been for GPLv3 to
be more clearly worded for documentation, rather than creating a whole
new license.
--
Glenn Maynard
Reply to: