On Mon, Feb 20, 2006 at 01:52:37PM +0100, Jeroen Dekkers wrote:
At Mon, 20 Feb 2006 12:09:48 +0000, MJ Ray wrote:
Also, it's only a postponement, not a long-term fix. Please help explain to savannah-hackers-public@gnu why requiring a known-buggy GPL-incompatible licence is a bad idea.
Requiring a certain license is just a stupid thing to begin with. The requirement should be that it's free (or you can add the extra requirement that it should be GPL-compatible like gna.org has, that's also useful because you then share all code).
But if somebody wants to release his documentation under the BSD license, I don't see any reason why that should be forbidden by savannah.
It isn't. What they require is that the documentation be released under the GFDL or a compatible license. You can dual (or triple) license it under GFDL|GPL or GFDL|BSD or ...