"For documentation, we are currently clarifying exactly what licenses we accept" and the recent edits to that FAQ are evidence that it is changing, which is what you asked for (although you cut your "please back that up" demand).
So once again, there is no requirement that documentation must be licensed under the GFDL. There are clarifications that are being made, of which you, or I, know _nothing_ about. The driconf exchange was the evidence that it is now required that documentation must be licensed under the FDL. (Please don't use GFDL: you don't write GGPL.) No, it is no evidence at all. It is a specific case of which we have _zero_ details about. Sadly, this isn't baseless: Savannah rejected a project because it used the GPL, rather than a GPL-incompatible licence. It is baseless, you have no clue about why it was rejected other than a couple of messages. Please, once again, stop making these baseless accusations. _______________________________________________ Discussion mailing list [email protected] https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
