Google Code Hosting
simo.sorce at xsec.it
Fri Oct 27 21:41:45 UTC 2006
On Fri, 2006-10-27 at 16:22 +0200, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
> FWIW, it's clearly different: the GPL can be used for manuals, but
> is not an FDL-compatible licence, because it does not allow
> addition of unremovable adverts and the other FDL problems.
> These are not problems, again you spread more FUD.
No, YOU are spreading confusion, and YOU should stop doing that.
Whether you like or not, there are people that do not like the GFDL, and
there are documents released under the GPL and the license might not be
This is a _real_ problem if you want to move to savannah or gna because
their policy and your legal situation may simply conflict.
> So, requiring FDL-compatibility means requiring something less
> sharing-protective for the manuals than the GPL. :-/
> The GFDL is as sharing protective as the GPL, but it it is meant for
It does not matter how much you like or not the GFDL in some cases.
You can't re-license your manuals under the GFDL if you don't have
agreement from all the authors.
So please stop spreading FUD yourself.
> Yet again you start spreading FUD about the GFDL, please stop. If you
> have a opinion, state it as that, but to this point it has always been
Opinion: I don't like being forced to change the license of my
documentation from GPL to GFDL
Opinion: I think others should know that if they don't want or can't
change the license of their documentation to GFDL they can't "legally"
use Savannah or Gna.
Both these opinions are based on facts, please, either confute facts or
stop with this propaganda for the GFDL, we know what the GFDL is, if it
is good or not for our projects, if we like it or not, or if we want to
use it or not.
More information about the Discussion