W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > April 2011

RE: GPL and DFSG Compatibility of Proposed Document Licences

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>
Message-ID: <E3280858FA94444CA49D2BA02341C983016DA9CECA@orsmsx506.amr.corp.intel.com>
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
>   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:

>Responses with rationale:


>Lachlan Hunt - Opera Software


Received on Thursday, 28 April 2011 18:46:30 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Saturday, 9 October 2021 18:45:37 UTC