Quantcast

License change for the GPH.

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
19 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

License change for the GPH.

Werner Koch
Hi Richard,

[Don asked me to contact you directly]

many years ago, Mike Ashley wrote the GNU Privacy Handbook as a manual
for GnuPG.  Back in 2000 the license was changed to the GNU FDL and we
did a few translations of the manual.  Meanwhile the manual is heavily
out of date and should be updated to reflect the current state of the
project.  Up until now such updates did not happen because the
restrictive terms of the FDL made it hard to include content from other
sources (HOWTOS, FAQ, etc.) or re-use parts of the GPH elsewhere (FAQ).

Documentation for encryption is very important these days and we should
move away any blockers for a wider dissemination.

Thus I like to ask for a license change of the GPH to CC-by-sa/GPLv3.
Something like

   You can redistribute this manual and/or modify it under the terms of
   the

   [[http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/][Creative Commons
   Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License]]

   or alternatively under the terms of the

   [[http://www.gnu.org/licenses/][GNU General Public License]] as
   published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 3 of the
   License, or (at your option) any later version.

   If you wish to allow the use of your version of this manual only
   under the terms of one of these licenses, indicate your decision by
   deleting the respective above paragraph.



Salam-Shalom,

   Werner

--
Die Gedanken sind frei.  Ausnahmen regelt ein Bundesgesetz.


_______________________________________________
Gnupg-doc mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-doc
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: License change for the GPH.

Richard Stallman
        [ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider
        [ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies,
        [ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example.

      Up until now such updates did not happen because the
    restrictive terms of the FDL made it hard to include content from other
    sources (HOWTOS, FAQ, etc.) or re-use parts of the GPH elsewhere (FAQ).

What is the legal status of the FAQ?  Who are the contributors?
What license does it carry, and how was that chosen?

Likewise for the HOWTOS that you want to use.

    Thus I like to ask for a license change of the GPH to CC-by-sa/GPLv3.

Could you explain why you think that license is desirable?
What is the problem you think it would solve?  I doubt it would really
solve the problem; I suspect there is a mistake.  But until I see the
details, I can't be certain.

I think it will be necessary to write new text with the pertinent
information; but first let's try contacting the people who wrote the
text you want to use and get their permission.  Those who wrote
small changes in that text, we need not ask.

--
Dr Richard Stallman
President, Free Software Foundation
51 Franklin St
Boston MA 02110
USA
www.fsf.org  www.gnu.org
Skype: No way! That's nonfree (freedom-denying) software.
  Use Ekiga or an ordinary phone call.




_______________________________________________
Gnupg-doc mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-doc
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: License change for the GPH.

Werner Koch
On Sat, 19 Oct 2013 02:21, [hidden email] said:

> What is the legal status of the FAQ?  Who are the contributors?

  Copyright (C) 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2010 Free Software Foundation,
  Inc., 51 Franklin Street, Fifth Floor, Boston, MA 02111, USA

  This file is free software; as a special exception the author gives
  unlimited permission to copy and/or distribute it, with or without
  modifications, as long as this notice is preserved.

Copyright assignments have never been requested, though.

> Likewise for the HOWTOS that you want to use.

Some are GPL, other are all permissive.

> Could you explain why you think that license is desirable?

I already did that: The FDL makes it too hard to re-use parts of a text
(history section, carrying the licenses, and so on).  You should be well
aware of the arguments due to solution worked out with Wikipedia to
switch from FDL to CC-by-sa.

> I think it will be necessary to write new text with the pertinent

We have lots of new texts readiliy available but can't include them due
the the license conflict.

FWIW, Gpg4win manual is also under the FDL but the German goverment, as
copyright holder, agreed to work on a license change.

> information; but first let's try contacting the people who wrote the
> text you want to use and get their permission.  Those who wrote

Nope.  The problem is that the use of the FDL was a mistake, it hinders
wider dissemination of important information.  I would even agree to use
CC-0 for such documentation, but CC-by-sa/GPL will be sufficient.


Salam-Shalom,

   Werner

--
Die Gedanken sind frei.  Ausnahmen regelt ein Bundesgesetz.


_______________________________________________
Gnupg-doc mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-doc
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: License change for the GPH.

Richard Stallman
        [ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider
        [ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies,
        [ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example.

    > What is the legal status of the FAQ?  Who are the contributors?

      Copyright (C) 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2010 Free Software Foundation,
      Inc., 51 Franklin Street, Fifth Floor, Boston, MA 02111, USA

      This file is free software; as a special exception the author gives
      unlimited permission to copy and/or distribute it, with or without
      modifications, as long as this notice is preserved.

This license permits reusing the material under the GFDL.

    Copyright assignments have never been requested, though.

We can make exceptions about copyright assignments for parts
of a work, so let's make an exception for the FAQ material.

(It probably needs substantial rewriting to become good text
for a manual -- so you won't be using it verbatim.)

    > Likewise for the HOWTOS that you want to use.

    Some are GPL, other are all permissive.

The ones that are all permissive, we can copy from.  For the ones that
are GPL, could you identify the text that you want to use?  When we
see how much it is, we can decide what to do.  Perhaps rewrite it.  Perhaps
ask the authors to cooperate.

    > Could you explain why you think that license is desirable?

    I already did that:

No, you didn't.  You only made a general statement that you
think CC-BY-SA|GPL would solve some kinds of problems.
I don't think it would help at all.

So let's investigate it concretely.  Could you tell me
one work that you think you could include, if you switched the manual
to CC-BY-SA|GPL, but could not include now?
What license does that work carry now?

    We have lots of new texts readiliy available but can't include them due
    the the license conflict.

I don't think the change you are asking for would solve any of the
conflicts.  With a specific case to examine, we will know for certain.

--
Dr Richard Stallman
President, Free Software Foundation
51 Franklin St
Boston MA 02110
USA
www.fsf.org  www.gnu.org
Skype: No way! That's nonfree (freedom-denying) software.
  Use Ekiga or an ordinary phone call.




_______________________________________________
Gnupg-doc mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-doc
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: License change for the GPH.

Richard Stallman
In reply to this post by Werner Koch
        [ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider
        [ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies,
        [ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example.

    FWIW, Gpg4win manual is also under the FDL but the German goverment, as
    copyright holder, agreed to work on a license change.

Please don't ask them to do that.  As a public rejection of our
lciense, that would hurt the GNU Project as a whole.  And it would not
help.  As I explained in the other message, I don't think it would
solve any of the practical problems.

There are many solutions to a problem like this.  I looking for a
solution that doesn't hurt us -- it may take some extra work, but it
will be good in every sense.

--
Dr Richard Stallman
President, Free Software Foundation
51 Franklin St
Boston MA 02110
USA
www.fsf.org  www.gnu.org
Skype: No way! That's nonfree (freedom-denying) software.
  Use Ekiga or an ordinary phone call.




_______________________________________________
Gnupg-doc mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-doc
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: License change for the GPH.

Werner Koch
In reply to this post by Richard Stallman
On Tue, 22 Oct 2013 03:25, [hidden email] said:

> No, you didn't.  You only made a general statement that you
> think CC-BY-SA|GPL would solve some kinds of problems.
> I don't think it would help at all.

Feel free to have a different opinion on that.  My time is too precious
to rewrite existing texts just for the sake to help keeping the FDL
alive.  As a contractor this would be different, though.

> So let's investigate it concretely.  Could you tell me
> one work that you think you could include, if you switched the manual
> to CC-BY-SA|GPL, but could not include now?

I already explained that this is about wider dissemination of existing
documentation.  It is not only about including other text into the GPH
but to use text from the GPH elsewhere (e.g. in Wikipedia, magazines).

Helping people to protect their private data is more important than
holding up the use of the FDL.  It is a shame that we need to spend time
on minor legal issues.


Shalom-Salam,

   Werner

--
Die Gedanken sind frei.  Ausnahmen regelt ein Bundesgesetz.


_______________________________________________
Gnupg-doc mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-doc
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: License change for the GPH.

Werner Koch
In reply to this post by Richard Stallman
On Tue, 22 Oct 2013 03:25, [hidden email] said:

> Please don't ask them to do that.  As a public rejection of our
> lciense, that would hurt the GNU Project as a whole.  And it would not

Fortunately this is already in the works.

I can tell what really hurts the GNU project: The stubbornness of
keeping tight control over everything with the result that people try to
get out of the way of everything which is related to the FSF - GPLv3
inclusive.  Recall the GCC plugin discussion with the final outcome that
most research is now done with LLVM and we actually helped Apple to get
their semi-proprietary stuff mainstream.

I have had hard times explaining why the GPLv3 is good for everyone -
despite that there are really sound arguments in favor of the GPLv3.  I
can't tell a single argument why the FDL is better than CC-by-sa or GPL.
Still you are requesting the use of the FDL for all FSF related
documentation. Luckily we never implemented that for the GnuPG included
docs.

> There are many solutions to a problem like this.  I looking for a

For example working with CC to make the FDL compatible to CC-by-sa but
then one could also simple switch to CC-by-sa.


Salam-Shalom,

   Werner

--
Die Gedanken sind frei.  Ausnahmen regelt ein Bundesgesetz.


_______________________________________________
Gnupg-doc mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-doc
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: License change for the GPH.

Richard Stallman
In reply to this post by Werner Koch
        [ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider
        [ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies,
        [ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example.

    > No, you didn't.  You only made a general statement that you
    > think CC-BY-SA|GPL would solve some kinds of problems.
    > I don't think it would help at all.

    Feel free to have a different opinion on that.

It's not a matter of opinion.  Based on my knowledge of licenses,
this is my conclusion.  I've invited you to show evidence that
I'm mistaken, but if you don't show me evidence, I will stand
by my conclusion.

Please tell me the names of the GPL-covered HOWTOs that you want
to use code from, and the FSF will find someone to work on getting them
relicensed, so you won't have to do this work.

We can find a solution for using text from the GPH in magazines, but
Wikipedia is out of luck.  It was their choice to stop using the GFDL.
They can't use the GPL-covered HOWTOs either.  While asking people
to relicense them, I could ask them to switch to GFDL|CC-SA;
then it would work for Wikipedia too.

--
Dr Richard Stallman
President, Free Software Foundation
51 Franklin St
Boston MA 02110
USA
www.fsf.org  www.gnu.org
Skype: No way! That's nonfree (freedom-denying) software.
  Use Ekiga or an ordinary phone call.




_______________________________________________
Gnupg-doc mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-doc
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: License change for the GPH.

Werner Koch
Richard,

virtually nobody understands why you favor the GFDL over other free
licenses useful for documentation.  In particular the CC-by-sa is a
widely used strong copyleft licenses without the problems of the GFDL.
All the arguments listing the disadvantages of the GFDL have been
repeated as nauseam over the last decade.  It would really be helpful
and a sign of good will to stop this and declare CC-by-sa as a useful
license for (GNU) documentation and stop demanding the use of the GFDL
for GNU software.

> We can find a solution for using text from the GPH in magazines, but
> Wikipedia is out of luck.  It was their choice to stop using the GFDL.

And did that hurt the free software/society movement?  Obviously not.

> They can't use the GPL-covered HOWTOs either.  While asking people

I would bet that most authors who use the GPL for documentation would
also consider to dual-license their HOWTOs under CC-by-sa/GPL ...

> to relicense them, I could ask them to switch to GFDL|CC-SA;

... but not to the GFDL.

Persisting on the use of the GFDL harms GnuPG, worse, it harms the
privacy of many people because we won't let them easily share useful
information on how to protect themselves.  This is not my understanding
of helping my neighbors.

It is 16 years since I started to work on GnuPG.  During all these years
I have always spoken out in favor of the GNU project - maybe now is the
time to reconsider.


Salam-Shalom,

   Werner

--
Die Gedanken sind frei.  Ausnahmen regelt ein Bundesgesetz.

_______________________________________________
Gnupg-doc mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-doc

attachment0 (210 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: License change for the GPH.

Werner Koch
In reply to this post by Richard Stallman
Hi!

Just a quick update.  Richard replied privately to me; I responded along
these lines:

I recall that at least once discussing license problems on the internal
gnu-prog-discuss list has been disallowed.  I did not agree to this
censorship but back then it was not a direct problem of mine.  Now, a
GPH license change is GnuPG related and thus on my turf - here I won't
let anyone stop me discussing things unless there are sound reasons for
this.  A proposed change from GFDL to CC-by-sa/GPL is neither a security
issue nor would it harm the free software/society community.

The author of the GPH as well as many others signed copyright
assignments to the FSF on my request.  They did this in the true believe
that the FSF will act responsible and in the best interest of the free
software community.  It is sad to see how the FSF distrusts their
volunteers by following a seemingly selfish interest to push for the
GFDL despite that the world has moved to better and easier alternatives
for free documentation.

Today we have a plethora of free documentation and it is more the norm
than the exception that documentation is free.  This is for sure due to
RMS's efforts on demanding free documentation.  It is just that today
the sledgehammer of the GFDL can and should be replaced by precision
mechanics' tools.


Shalom-Salam,

   Werner

--
Die Gedanken sind frei.  Ausnahmen regelt ein Bundesgesetz.


_______________________________________________
Gnupg-doc mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-doc
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: License change for the GPH.

Karl Voit-5
* Werner Koch <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Hi!

Hi!

> Now, a GPH license change is GnuPG related and thus on my turf -
> here I won't let anyone stop me discussing things unless there are
> sound reasons for this.  A proposed change from GFDL to
> CC-by-sa/GPL is neither a security issue nor would it harm the
> free software/society community.

I am not that deep into the status of GnuPG documentation.
However, in case it is that outdated as some people wrote, is a
completely re-write from scratch an option?

This would allow for a modern up-to-date documentation with a new
licence model and fresh content management to attract a wider range
of audience.

Just my 2 cents ...

--
All in all, one of the most disturbing things today is the definitive
fact that the NSA, GCHQ, and many more government organizations are
massively terrorizing the freedom of us and the next generations.


_______________________________________________
Gnupg-doc mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-doc
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: License change for the GPH.

A.M. Kuchling
On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 05:13:10PM +0100, Karl Voit wrote:
> I am not that deep into the status of GnuPG documentation.
> However, in case it is that outdated as some people wrote, is a
> completely re-write from scratch an option?

I think that's certainly an option, and have started thinking about
an outline:

https://raw.github.com/akuchling/gpg-primer/master/primer.org

I'd love to hear reactions and suggestions.

--amk

_______________________________________________
Gnupg-doc mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-doc
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: License change for the GPH.

Karl Voit-5
* A.M. Kuchling <[hidden email]> wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 05:13:10PM +0100, Karl Voit wrote:
>> However, in case it is that outdated as some people wrote, is a
>> completely re-write from scratch an option?
>
> I think that's certainly an option, and have started thinking about
> an outline:
> https://raw.github.com/akuchling/gpg-primer/master/primer.org

Cool.

> I'd love to hear reactions and suggestions.

From a quick glance at your page, I'd say it is a good structure.

As a side-note: how about thinking about a set of personas[1]. For
example, I would say that users of Outlook with no deep IT knowledge
are our most important target group for GnuPG documentation. With a
persona in this area, you are able to determine whether or not a
certain topic is explained on a suitable level. It's hard to write
concise documentation with no clear image of the typical reader.

  1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personas#In_user_experience_design
--
All in all, one of the most disturbing things today is the definitive
fact that the NSA, GCHQ, and many more government organizations are
massively terrorizing the freedom of us and the next generations.


_______________________________________________
Gnupg-doc mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-doc
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: License change for the GPH.

Werner Koch
In reply to this post by Werner Koch
Hi!

it is now a week since my last mail to Richard and I have received no
response on that.  I conclude that the FSF (i.e. Richard Stallman) does
not agree to a license change.  Thus we need to help ourselves.

amk offered to write a new manual from scratch and Mike indicated that
he is willing to terminate his copyright agreement so that he regains
the rights on his parts of the GPH.  I briefly checked the status of the
GPH and at the very least the version included with GnuPG 1.0.0 (1998)
was written by Mike with two smaller contributions.  The ChangeLog shows
that the English version had only minor updates by me and one other
contributor.  The GNU copyright list has specific entries for Mike's
assignment and for the Japanese translator.  However, the GPH is filed
as part of GNUPG and thus it is possible that many more authors worked
on it - I doubt that, though.  Inspection of the old (now offline) CVS
repository should give more clarity.

Given the sad state of the GNU discussion culture and its
not-so-benevolent dictator, I also doubt that the GNU project is the
right place for GnuPG.


Shalom-Salam,

   Werner


--
Die Gedanken sind frei.  Ausnahmen regelt ein Bundesgesetz.

_______________________________________________
Gnupg-doc mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-doc

attachment0 (210 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: License change for the GPH.

Richard Stallman
        [ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider
        [ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies,
        [ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example.

I am slow to respond to your messages because they have a lot of anger
in them.  It would be easy to respond by getting angry, but that
wouldn't make things better.  To respond in a way that might lead to
more good will is difficult, and not obvious how to do.  I put off
responding to your previous message until I could see how.

A couple of messages ago, you asked me to show "good will", but I've
never shown you any bad will.  You are asking me to make a license
change, and you haven't convinced me, but does that make me a dictator?
If we disagree about the right license to use, or the best way to
resolve a certain question, does it have to mean hostility?

--
Dr Richard Stallman
President, Free Software Foundation
51 Franklin St
Boston MA 02110
USA
www.fsf.org  www.gnu.org
Skype: No way! That's nonfree (freedom-denying) software.
  Use Ekiga or an ordinary phone call.


_______________________________________________
Gnupg-doc mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-doc
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: License change for the GPH.

Werner Koch
On Mon,  4 Nov 2013 16:31, [hidden email] said:

> A couple of messages ago, you asked me to show "good will", but I've
> never shown you any bad will.  You are asking me to make a license
> change, and you haven't convinced me, but does that make me a dictator?

You tried to convince me to keep on using the GFDL despite that the
whole point of this discussion is that the GFDL is not suitable for our
documentation purposes.  The topic is “Please agree to license change” and
not “We want to discuss which license is better”.

During the lengthy discussions we have had at the gpd list for about two
years, you quite clearly stated that you are the only one to decide and
that for certain topics there will be no room for any discussion - not
even at the internal GNU lists.

> If we disagree about the right license to use, or the best way to
> resolve a certain question, does it have to mean hostility?

Well, you may feel like being treated hostile but so are the authors
whom you refuse to grant the simple favor of changing to a different
copyleft license.  I do not want to repeat a discussion which is as old
as the GFDL and which outcome has almost always (except for Wikipedia)
been your refusal to drop the GFDL.  Too bad, how how many friends of
free software have been alienated from the GNU project due to the
politburo alike management style of the FSF.  I am not sure whether
there is still a chance for Perestroika.


Shalom-Salam,

   Werner

--
Die Gedanken sind frei.  Ausnahmen regelt ein Bundesgesetz.


_______________________________________________
Gnupg-doc mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-doc
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: License change for the GPH.

Richard Stallman
        [ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider
        [ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies,
        [ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example.

    You tried to convince me to keep on using the GFDL despite that the
    whole point of this discussion is that the GFDL is not suitable for our
    documentation purposes.  The topic is  Please agree to license change  and
    not  We want to discuss which license is better .

The topic you had in mind was "Please agree to license change", but
you did not present much of an argument for the change.  You didn't
even try to convince me.  It didn't matter to you whether I agreed.

Since you've decided to write a new manual, and you want to release
it under a disjunction of licenses, please include the GFDL
as one of the options in the disjunction.

--
Dr Richard Stallman
President, Free Software Foundation
51 Franklin St
Boston MA 02110
USA
www.fsf.org  www.gnu.org
Skype: No way! That's nonfree (freedom-denying) software.
  Use Ekiga or an ordinary phone call.


_______________________________________________
Gnupg-doc mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-doc
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: License change for the GPH.

Richard Stallman
In reply to this post by Werner Koch
Since you've decided to write a new manual, and you want to release
it under a disjunction of licenses, please include the GFDL
as one of the options in the disjunction.

This will make its text compatible for use in our other manuals.

Ok?

--
Dr Richard Stallman
President, Free Software Foundation
51 Franklin St
Boston MA 02110
USA
www.fsf.org  www.gnu.org
Skype: No way! That's nonfree (freedom-denying) software.
  Use Ekiga or an ordinary phone call.


_______________________________________________
Gnupg-doc mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-doc
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: License change for the GPH.

Werner Koch
Hi Richard,

first of all I have to apologize that your mails to gnupg-doc didn't
showed up there.  It was not my intention to censor any messages.  In
fact, I didn't noticed that they didn't made it to gnupg-doc because my
own mail setup sorts such mails into the gnupg-doc folder and removes
the CCed duplicates.  Thus only when someone else pointed me to the fact
that your mails are missing in the gnupg-doc archives, I realized that I
must have accidentally deleted them while cleaning up the thousands of
spam messages stacked up over the last months in the gnupg-doc folder.

Meanwhile, I whitelisted you for gnupg-doc and also resent the missing
mails (which unfortunately end ob in the wrong month of the archives
because Pipermail sorts them by receiving date).

This accident might well have been the reason for some of our
communication problems.  I am sorry about this.

On Tue, 19 Nov 2013 07:04, [hidden email] said:
> Since you've decided to write a new manual, and you want to release
> it under a disjunction of licenses, please include the GFDL
> as one of the options in the disjunction.
>
> This will make its text compatible for use in our other manuals.

In principle I won't disagree here for a long manual; it is a bit of
extra work but that should be okay.  It is up to the actual authors
whether they will do that.

What I do not understand is that we asked you to re-license the existing
GPH and - from my understanding - you rejected that but then asked that
we should do the GNU project a favor and add the GFDL as one of the
licenses for a new GPH.


Salam-Shalom,

   Werner

--
Die Gedanken sind frei.  Ausnahmen regelt ein Bundesgesetz.


_______________________________________________
Gnupg-doc mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-doc
Loading...