- From: Carr, Wayne <wayne.carr@intel.com>
- Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2011 11:45:05 -0700
- To: Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>, public-html <public-html@w3.org>
FSF's own "GNU Free Documentation License" is also not compatible with their GPL. [1] It doesn't seem surprising that a license intended for documentation or specifications is incompatible with a license intended for software. In commentary on FSF's GFDL they note "Of course, if these scripts are generally useful for other tasks, it is a good idea to release them separately under the GNU GPL." [2] The options under consideration do something similar in licensing the types of things likely to be put into code in a different way (e.g. under the W3C Software License which is compatible with GPL).[3] [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Free_Documentation_License#GPL_incompatible_in_both_directions [2] http://www.gnu.org/licenses/fdl-howto.html [3] http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#SoftwareLicenses >-----Original Message----- >From: public-html-request@w3.org [mailto:public-html-request@w3.org] On >Behalf Of Lachlan Hunt >Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2011 8:44 AM >To: public-html >Subject: GPL and DFSG Compatibility of Proposed Document Licences > >Hi, > To help resolve the question about GPL compatibility of the W3C's proposed >licences, I mailed debian-legal to ask for advice on this issue in relation to the GPL >and DFSG. The response so far provides some good rationale explaining why >both options 2 and 3 are incompatible. > >Thread starts here: >http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2011/04/msg00058.html > >Responses with rationale: >http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2011/04/msg00061.html >http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2011/04/msg00062.html > >-- >Lachlan Hunt - Opera Software >http://lachy.id.au/ >http://www.opera.com/
Received on Thursday, 28 April 2011 18:46:30 UTC