License change for the GPH.

[Werner Koch]

Richard,

virtually nobody understands why you favor the GFDL over other free
licenses useful for documentation.  In particular the CC-by-sa is a
widely used strong copyleft licenses without the problems of the GFDL.
All the arguments listing the disadvantages of the GFDL have been
repeated as nauseam over the last decade.  It would really be helpful
and a sign of good will to stop this and declare CC-by-sa as a useful
license for (GNU) documentation and stop demanding the use of the GFDL
for GNU software.

> We can find a solution for using text from the GPH in magazines, but
> Wikipedia is out of luck.  It was their choice to stop using the GFDL.

And did that hurt the free software/society movement?  Obviously not.

> They can't use the GPL-covered HOWTOs either.  While asking people

I would bet that most authors who use the GPL for documentation would
also consider to dual-license their HOWTOs under CC-by-sa/GPL ...

> to relicense them, I could ask them to switch to GFDL|CC-SA;

... but not to the GFDL.

Persisting on the use of the GFDL harms GnuPG, worse, it harms the
privacy of many people because we won't let them easily share useful
information on how to protect themselves.  This is not my understanding
of helping my neighbors.

It is 16 years since I started to work on GnuPG.  During all these years
I have always spoken out in favor of the GNU project - maybe now is the
time to reconsider.


Salam-Shalom,

   Werner

-- 
Die Gedanken sind frei.  Ausnahmen regelt ein Bundesgesetz.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 204 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: </pipermail/attachments/20131023/938678b7/attachment.sig>