Sylvain Beucler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Greetings, > > > > I am the project manager for ArX [1]. I read the news about licenses > > clarification, and I have two comments/questions. > > > > 1) My code has always been under GPL v2 only. This was noted when I > > applied to savannah [2]. Is this going to be a problem? > > Yes, if you die before GNU GPL v3 is released.
I don't understand what you mean here. I am not the only copyright holder. > However this requirement applies to new projects only. > > > > 2) My project includes a 56 page manual under GPL v2 only. The only > > license I will use for documentation is the same as for the code. > > Since even RMS does not think that the GFDL is a free software > > license [3], that rules out the GFDL. > > This is a borderline case since the source for the manual is not > hosted at Savannah, but the manual is still available at > www.nongnu.org. The manual's source is available in the tarball available from Savannah. > Is there a precise reason why the manual's license is bound to ArX's? Because I want to be able to intermix code and documentation. Cheers, Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED]
