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, rms at gnu.org 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.