[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Monotone-devel] Re: re-licensing the monotone manual
From: |
Evan Deaubl |
Subject: |
[Monotone-devel] Re: re-licensing the monotone manual |
Date: |
Sun, 18 Feb 2007 20:37:49 -0700 |
User-agent: |
Thunderbird 1.5.0.9 (X11/20061223) |
I have no issue with my contributions to monotone.texi (as small as they
may be) being relicensed under the GPL (v2 or later).
Evan
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-licensing the monotone manual, Nathaniel Smith, 2007/02/19
- [Monotone-devel] Re: re-licensing the monotone manual,
Evan Deaubl <=
- [Monotone-devel] Re: re-licensing the monotone manual, Grahame Bowland, 2007/02/18
- [Monotone-devel] Re: re-licensing the monotone manual, Matt Johnston, 2007/02/18
- [Monotone-devel] Re: re-licensing the monotone manual, Richard Levitte - VMS Whacker, 2007/02/19
- [Monotone-devel] Re: re-licensing the monotone manual, Thomas Keller, 2007/02/19
- [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