Re: FYI: Savannah forces new projects to use GFDL for documentation
On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 09:43:42PM +0000, Sune Vuorela wrote:
> On 2006-02-09, Matthew Palmer <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> > What really got me saying "whoa!" though is the blog post linked from the
> > ticket comments -- the fourth paragraph seems to say that Savannah changed
> > it's policy because Debian doesn't think the GFDL is DFSG-free. Worrying,
> > if true.
> The blog entry is now gone. Any one got a copy ?
Unfortunately, I closed the tab, and there's no Google-cache copy of it I
can find. In the absence of an actual copy of the post for people to make
their own opinion on, all I can assert is that what is currently in the blog
Savannah didn't changed its policy about the license requirements, there
exists only plans to do so. Currently we discuss how usefull it is to
use the GNU GPL for your documentations. However you can even use any
other GNU FDL compatible licenses to release your documentations - so we
don't limit anybody there.
contradicts my recollection of what was in that post this morning -- that
the new Savannah policy on documentation licencing *had* changed. It also
quoted a message on the sv-hackers list to that effect.
I'll note the thorough pointlessness of allowing GFDL-compatible licences.
The GFDL isn't even compatible with itself amongst it's many variants; what
is the hope that anything *else* will be compatible with it?
My opinion of FSF people is descending rapidly here. Revising history is
never a good sign.