savannah-hackers-public
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Savannah-hackers-public] status of documentation licenses


From: Sylvain Beucler
Subject: Re: [Savannah-hackers-public] status of documentation licenses
Date: Sun, 5 Mar 2006 22:34:23 +0100
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.11+cvs20060126

By the way, did you answer to the gv/ghostscript maintainer?
I have his message, but no reply; maybe you replied directly to him?

-- 
Sylvain

On Sun, Mar 05, 2006 at 08:52:43PM +0100, Sylvain Beucler wrote:
> We had 0 time to work on it, except answering questions from people.
> 
> We also wait an answer from RMS about litterate programming.
> 
> -- 
> Sylvain
> 
> On Fri, Mar 03, 2006 at 06:48:42PM -0600, Karl Berry wrote:
> > (Repeating my message from a few days ago.)
> > 
> > Hi Sylvain and all,
> > 
> > (Switching to -public since I don't see that this stuff is secret.)
> > 
> > Can you tell me where we stand with all this?  We were just getting
> > going when I had to be away ... rms wanted to get a status update.
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > k
> > 
> > Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2006 23:40:15 -0500
> > From: "Richard M. Stallman" <address@hidden>
> > To: Sylvain Beucler <address@hidden>, address@hidden
> > CC: address@hidden
> > cc: address@hidden
> > Subject: Re: [Savannah-hackers-private] Documentation licenses
> > 
> >     old-style GNU manual license / simple copyleft:
> >     ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >     ~100
> > 
> > We should ask them to upgrade.  These old-style licenses
> > are incompatible with everything else.
> > 
> >     missing / unclear:
> >     ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > 
> > We should ask them to put on clear notices about use of the GNU FDL.
> > 
> >     ghostscript/ghostscript/doc/ghostscript.texi (GNU)
> >     gv/gv/doc/gv.texi (GNU)
> >     hyperbole/hyperbole/man/hyperbole.texi (GNU)
> >     sather (GNU)
> > 
> > We should ask them to convert to the GFDL.
> > In the case of Ghostscript, we may have to replace the manual.
> > That may take time--it is not rush.
> > 
> > We need not bother the existing non-GNU packages with GPL'd manuals.
> > What we need to do is make sure there will not be any additional
> > ones in the future.  This means, first of all, putting a clear statement
> > in the policies so that new projects will know that manuals must have
> > licenses compatible with "GFDL version N or later".
> > 
> > Karl, can you work on these three things with the Savannah people?
> > I expect it to take some time to do them all.
> > 
> > 




reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]