On Sun, Apr 24, 2005 at 05:39:19PM -0700, Michael K. Edwards wrote: > As I see it, the individuals who assigned their copyright in GNU > documentation to the FSF probably didn't expect to see the relicensing > of their work under a GPL-incompatible license, creating yet another > "gated community" carved out of the ostensible commons. In my
Has the FSF ever licensed documentation under a GPL-compatible license? I don't think the old GNU documentation license was GPL-compatible, either. Fundamentally, all "viral" licenses--that is, all licenses that require the preservation of all permissions, which is to say GPL#6's "You may not impose ..."--are mutually incompatible by nature. It's a basic, unavoidable problem with the concept (the GPL is "unneighborly" by design), I think: the only way to make a work compatible with more than one is dual-licensing, or by "upgrade clauses" (like the LGPL's) which are usually one-way gates. I just point this out to be fair to the GFDL: GPL-incompatibility is fairly inherent. I think the right fix would have been for GPLv3 to be more clearly worded for documentation, rather than creating a whole new license. -- Glenn Maynard -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
