We had 0 time to work on it, except answering questions from people. We also wait an answer from RMS about litterate programming.
-- Sylvain On Fri, Mar 03, 2006 at 06:48:42PM -0600, Karl Berry wrote: > (Repeating my message from a few days ago.) > > Hi Sylvain and all, > > (Switching to -public since I don't see that this stuff is secret.) > > Can you tell me where we stand with all this? We were just getting > going when I had to be away ... rms wanted to get a status update. > > Thanks, > k > > Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2006 23:40:15 -0500 > From: "Richard M. Stallman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: Sylvain Beucler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] > CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [Savannah-hackers-private] Documentation licenses > > old-style GNU manual license / simple copyleft: > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > ~100 > > We should ask them to upgrade. These old-style licenses > are incompatible with everything else. > > missing / unclear: > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > We should ask them to put on clear notices about use of the GNU FDL. > > ghostscript/ghostscript/doc/ghostscript.texi (GNU) > gv/gv/doc/gv.texi (GNU) > hyperbole/hyperbole/man/hyperbole.texi (GNU) > sather (GNU) > > We should ask them to convert to the GFDL. > In the case of Ghostscript, we may have to replace the manual. > That may take time--it is not rush. > > We need not bother the existing non-GNU packages with GPL'd manuals. > What we need to do is make sure there will not be any additional > ones in the future. This means, first of all, putting a clear statement > in the policies so that new projects will know that manuals must have > licenses compatible with "GFDL version N or later". > > Karl, can you work on these three things with the Savannah people? > I expect it to take some time to do them all. > >
