Tue 23 Aug 2011 09:18:42 PM UTC, comment #6:
> Regarding the license, your current text is what used to be
> recommended for GNU manuals.Regarding the license, your
> current text is what used to be recommended for GNU manuals.
That explains why it has been chosen once upon its time, and
why the project has been accepted that way. (The original
AVRDUDE project has been completely licensed under a BSD-style
license, which was changed by the time it was submitted to
savannah, to fit into the GNU world.)
I still think it's a waste of time to even discuss these
nitpicking details, but whatever, we decided to dual-license
the documentation file to simply put an end onto that
pointless discussion.
|
Fri 19 Aug 2011 04:43:15 PM UTC, comment #5:
Regarding the license, your current text is what used to be recommended for GNU manuals. Personally, I wish the FDL had somehow been made compatible with it, but it isn't. One big issue that comes up immediately is that the old "Permission is granted..." style says nothing about opaque and transparent copies, so as far as I know it would be legally possible to distribute printed copies, for example, without the readers being able to get the source.
As for "a lot more restrictions": no. (More complicated, yes, clearly so.) If you do not use Front-Cover Texts, Back-Cover Texts, or Invariant Sections, the only significant new requirements are on people publishing lots of printed copies.
After all, your original text and the FDL were written by the same person (rms) with the same purpose (to make documentation free). He would be the last person in the world who would want to impose problematic restrictions.
Best,
karl
|
Fri 19 Aug 2011 04:32:10 PM UTC, comment #4:
Regarding version X, that means "the latest released version of the FDL". I updated https://savannah.gnu.org/register/requirements.php to say that explicitly.
|
Wed 17 Aug 2011 09:03:29 AM UTC, comment #3:
Of course, I can't tell for sure which have been the published
hosting requirements in 2003 (hopefully, some kind of VCS
would tell that), nor am I the one who registered the project
back then. I can only tell from our VCS that these files
have never changed their license statement ever since.
My grief with the FDL is that it looks much more complicated
to me than the simple license the original author of this
project has chosen. The FDL implies a lot more restrictions
about what you can do in particular with modified versions.
Exactly which of the clauses in the existing license do you
think is incompatible with the FDL 1.3?
(Btw., the requirements document requires compatibilty with
"GNU FDL version X or later". I don't think there's a
"version X" available ...)
|
Tue 16 Aug 2011 11:58:25 PM UTC, comment #2:
Hi Joerg,
The official requirements for savannah hosting, including nongnu.savannah.org, are at https://savannah.gnu.org/register/requirements.php. See the last section.
These requirements haven't changed in this respect since 2003 (to my knowledge), although I don't find it hard to believe that whoever approved the project in 2003 didn't do a complete check.
A simple license ... well, the choice is either 1) use the FDL, or
2) abandon copyleft for the documentation. The only licenses compatible with the FDL are permissive ones such as public domain (CC zero), Expat, and the like.
Hope this helps. Sorry for the extra work being incurred.
Best,
karl
|
Tue 16 Aug 2011 06:33:23 PM UTC, comment #1:
Could you please point me to a document that describes the current
acceptable use policy regarding documentation licenses for a non-GNU
project? I cannot only find something that appears to apply for GNU
projects (which I understand have tighter restrictions on licensing
policies), and when we have been registering the project in 2003,
nobody pointed out any specific requirements for that. Having the
project itself under GPL seemed enough by that time.
I eventually have to make all past contributors to agree to
a new license (in the hope I'll be able to actually contact
all of them), so I'd like to use a license that is as simple
as possible, in order to minimize the impact of any possible
future license policy changes.
|
Sat 17 Apr 2010 07:13:08 PM UTC, original submission:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256
April 17th 2010 in AVRdude tracker new item "Fix license"
The AVRdude documentation is under a sort of vague copyleft license.
We require all manuals to be under a license compatible with the GNU
FDL. The FDL 1.3 or later at user choise is adviced.
It's ok to dual license the work under the current license and the FDL
1.3+, but IMO the FDL alone fit's all the copyleft needs for a manual.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEAREIAAYFAkvKCD4ACgkQZ4DA0TLic4jYyQCdFkH14aT6A7b8Yb9qQtNLCWA0
2wQAn2ImuJ9ivgqeRS+2c18eaUznh8/P
=Ahu8
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
|