Re: FYI: Savannah forces new projects to use GFDL for documentation
fxkuehl@gmx.de wrote:
> Hmm, it seems this was a bit premature. The Savannah admin who was
> looking at my project registration wrote to me:
I think it was useful to post here (all times UTC):
Wed 19:05 kickino decides that GPL-only is not allowed
Wed 21:40 driconf application is cancelled
Thu 17:04 first posting to debian-legal about this
Fri 12:11 discussion@fsfeurope asked about it and send suggestions
Fri 17:09 Savannah sr #105140 asks for GPL-only projects to be OK again
Fri 18:39 kickino corrects the driconf decision
Fri 21:40 Beuc posts news item
http://savannah.gnu.org/forum/forum.php?forum_id=4303
"we plan to ask new projects to release documentation under a
license compatible with the GNU Free Documentation License."
Fri 21:49 Beuc replies to sr #105140, saying GPL-only is allowed
Presumably the sr wasn't the catalyst and others did similar things,
but I wonder if any happened before you mentioned it in public?
This problem is not solved, just deferred. Please comment to
savannah-hackers-public@gnu.org about the terrible plan to
require use of a GPL-incompatible licence. Many of us consider
adware too high a price "to enlist commercial publishers in
funding free documentation" (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-gfdl.html)
It's devious to only ask new projects to use it. That's a
divide-and-rule tactic used by the UK government for unpopular
measures like student tuition fees: those who were best able to
estimate the harm it causes were exempted from it, so fewer
complained, some fearful that a redraft could remove the exemption.
Thanks,
--
MJR/slef
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Reply to: