License change for the GPH.
wk at gnupg.org
Tue Oct 22 09:49:08 CEST 2013
On Tue, 22 Oct 2013 03:25, rms at gnu.org 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
> 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.
Die Gedanken sind frei. Ausnahmen regelt ein Bundesgesetz.
More information about the Gnupg-doc