Re: address@hidden: [Savannah-hackers] submission of Manual de referencia de PyGTK 2.0 - savannah.nongnu.org]

[Richard Stallman]

    > We should have criteria for documentation licenses on Savannah
    > just as we have criteria for software licenses.
    > I think we should call for documentation licenses to be compatible
    > with the GFDL or the GPL.

    Am I correct if I say the GNU hasn't got a list like that yet?

I don't entirely understand what list you mean.  There are infinitely
many possible licenses that are compatible with the GFDL, and
infinitely many that are compatible with the GPL.  So there cannot be
a complete list of acceptable licenses, as I see it.

In practice, only a finite set of such licenses have actually been used.
Practically speaking, we can have a fixed list of the normally acceptable
licenses.  It needs to be constructed.

Is there a fixed list of licenses allowed for savannah.nongnu.org?
I don't know the precise criteria.

    Yes I could, but he said in het submition: "There is currently no work
    done, and AFAICS the translated documentation would also have to
    fall under the same license."

    The original document is under the Creative Common
    Attribution-ShareAlike license.

Are you saying they are translating an existing manual?  I did not
realize that.  I see that they don't have a choice to change it.

I guess that means we should say no to this project.