Re: [Savannah-hackers-public] Savannah hosting requirements on documentation license (was: Re: [task #16589] Submission of P2P Social Network Pandora)

[Ineiev]

On Mon, Nov 11, 2024 at 11:19:49AM -0600, Corwin Brust wrote:
> 
> I think it is more to the point that program authors submitting to
> Savannah are not choosing the GFDL - we are pressuring them to do so.

I don't think we really do---no more than we are pressuring them
to choose the GPL for programs; if they don't like complexities,
they can apply a permissive license.

> Is this sufficiently important to justify applying such pressure?

Having free documentation is very important for free software,
and one can't take it for granted,
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-doc.html

When we encourage documentation license compatibility, we help
building free documentation.

> > I think one point to consider is coherency with GNU: non-GNU
> > Savannah was provided for hosting to serve as a place where
> > GNU packages could take code and documentation from; currently,
> > GNU policies include using FDL for manuals, so for that idea
> > to work, the documentation of packages hosted on non-GNU Savannah
> > should also be FDL-compatible... or the GNU Project could
> > reconsider its policies about the documentation.
> 
> IIUC, the argument stated is that Non-GNU Savannah packages might
> some-day become GNU packages.

No, the point is more like it was expressed: for GNU packages to
borrow any parts of code or documentation from other packages,
the licensing must be compatible.

> Let us drop any requirement specifying a license for document (but
> especially forcing GFDL) as a requirement for hosting on non-GNU
> Savannah, replacing it with a simple suggestion, such as:
> 
> Documentation for your program must be provided under GFLD, or a GPL
> compatible software license, or any other copy-left license of your
> choosing. We recommend GFDL, which is the preferred software license
> of the GNU project.

If we allow arbitrary copyleft licenses, the possibilities
for official GNU software to use it will be very limited;
generally, documentation under incompatible licenses will have
to be written again, and it's much less fun than to rewrite 
programs.

signature.asc
Description: PGP signature