[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Monotone-devel] Re: re-licensing the monotone manual
From: |
Emile Snyder |
Subject: |
[Monotone-devel] Re: re-licensing the monotone manual |
Date: |
Mon, 19 Feb 2007 08:23:31 -0800 |
I am fine with anything I contributed to the manual being released under
the GPL, v2 or later (although I don't think I have anything
sufficiently substantive to matter).
-Emile Snyder
(And hi to all you monotone developers; long time no see. Hope all is
well with everyone.)
On Sun, 2007-02-18 at 18:42 -0800, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
> Currently, the main monotone manual, 'monotone.texi' in the source
> tree, is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL).
> Now, it turns out that this is a lousy license, that is probably not
> even DFSG-free[1]. It certainly has a whole host of obnoxious
> practical problems; in particular, it is never possible to move text
> from code into documentation, or vice-versa -- the GFDL and GPL are
> entirely incompatible licenses.
>
> So we want to change the license on monotone.texi to be GPL. This is
> a boring and annoying change to make, which is why we've been letting
> it slide for months and months, but... it really should happen. So.
> If you're getting this as a personal mail, it's because at some point
> you touched the monotone manual, and I ask you:
>
> PLEASE REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, CC'ING address@hidden, AND
> SAY THAT YOU ARE FINE WITH YOUR CONTRIBUTIONS TO monotone.texi BEING
> RELEASED UNDER THE GPL (v2 or later).
>
> Probably not everyone on this list actually made significant enough
> changes to have a copyright interest, but hey, it's easier this way...
>
> Cheers,
> -- Nathaniel
>
> [1] The question of DFSG-freeness is actually sort of complicated --
> Debian as a whole does consider the GFDL to be DFSG-free (as long as
> you don't have any invariant section sections), but only because they
> had a whole general body vote on the matter, and that was the majority
> outcome. OTOH, the denizens of debian-legal, who presumably are the
> subset of Debian developers who actually know what they're talking
> about, overwhelmingly disagree:
> http://people.debian.org/~srivasta/Position_Statement.xhtml#survey
> Personally, I find the arguments that GFDL is non-free to be the most
> compelling.
>
- [Monotone-devel] Re: re-licensing the monotone manual, (continued)
- [Monotone-devel] Re: re-licensing the monotone manual, Florian Weimer, 2007/02/19
- [Monotone-devel] Re: re-licensing the monotone manual, Marcel van der Boom, 2007/02/19
- [Monotone-devel] Re: re-licensing the monotone manual, rghetta, 2007/02/19
- [Monotone-devel] Re: re-licensing the monotone manual, Matthew A. Nicholson, 2007/02/19
- [Monotone-devel] Re: re-licensing the monotone manual, Joel Rosdahl, 2007/02/19
- [Monotone-devel] Re: re-licensing the monotone manual, Ben Walton, 2007/02/19
- [Monotone-devel] Re: re-licensing the monotone manual, Jeronimo Pellegrini, 2007/02/19
- [Monotone-devel] Re: re-licensing the monotone manual, Ethan Blanton, 2007/02/19
- [Monotone-devel] Re: re-licensing the monotone manual, Brian Campbell, 2007/02/19
- [Monotone-devel] Re: re-licensing the monotone manual, joel reed, 2007/02/19
- [Monotone-devel] Re: re-licensing the monotone manual,
Emile Snyder <=
- [Monotone-devel] Re: re-licensing the monotone manual, Jeremy Cowgar, 2007/02/19
- [Monotone-devel] Re: re-licensing the monotone manual, Timothy Brownawell, 2007/02/19
- Re: [Monotone-devel] re-licensing the monotone manual, Daniel Carosone, 2007/02/20
- Re: [Monotone-devel] re-licensing the monotone manual, Justin Patrin, 2007/02/20
- Re: [Monotone-devel] re-licensing the monotone manual, Alex Queiroz, 2007/02/21
- [Monotone-devel] Re: re-licensing the monotone manual, Sebastian Spaeth, 2007/02/28
- Re: [Monotone-devel] re-licensing the monotone manual, Nathaniel Smith, 2007/02/20