Rob Myers wrote: > On Mon, 22 Feb 2010 11:21:08 -0000, "Sam Liddicott" <[email protected]> > wrote: > > If a document contains this license statement, is it compliant with the > > GPL3? [...] > > If by "compliant" you mean "compatible" then no, the GPL and FDL are > incompatible for the FSF's definition of compatible.
I agree. > > And, technically, is such a document licensed under the FDL or have we > > just made a new license which is the FDL + 3 constraints? > > You cannot add the requirement that downstream users not add invariant > sections. The text as above simply declares how the FDL is being used on > the document it is applied to. [...] If you don't want the invariant sections adware, don't use FDL. There is a SFDL which doesn't have adverts, but I think it's still draft after more than 3 years. See http://gplv3.fsf.org/sfdl-draft-2006-09-26.html > But possibly a better solution is to dual-licence the literate sources as > FDL/GPL3+ . [...] That's OK. I think an even better solution is to move off of Savannah to something that doesn't require use of non-free-software licences like the FDL. > I would recommend asking [email protected] about this approach to make > sure it's sound. I'd ask my own legal advisors, not FSF. > I am not a lawyer, this is not legal advice. Likewise. Hope that helps, -- MJ Ray (slef) Webmaster and LMS developer at | software www.software.coop http://mjr.towers.org.uk | .... co IMO only: see http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html | .... op _______________________________________________ Fsfe-uk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/fsfe-uk
