From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: prj@po.cwru.edu (Paul Jarc) Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.devel Subject: Re: doc license section Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2004 13:22:38 -0500 Organization: What did you have in mind? A short, blunt, human pyramid? Sender: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Message-ID: References: <873cai3vg1.fsf@zip.com.au> <87y8s19d9i.fsf@zagadka.ping.de> <1074722682.3851.47.camel@flare> <87u12oc34h.fsf@zagadka.ping.de> <87n08gc2g0.fsf@zagadka.ping.de> <40101199.8050801@ogopogo.biz> NNTP-Posting-Host: deer.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1074796074 5904 80.91.224.253 (22 Jan 2004 18:27:54 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2004 18:27:54 +0000 (UTC) Cc: guile-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Jan 22 19:27:46 2004 Return-path: Original-Received: from monty-python.gnu.org ([199.232.76.173]) by deer.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1AjjYP-0000J4-00 for ; Thu, 22 Jan 2004 19:27:45 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.24) id 1AjjWs-0006dR-6i for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 22 Jan 2004 13:26:10 -0500 Original-Received: from list by monty-python.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.24) id 1AjjWO-0006aX-NH for guile-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 22 Jan 2004 13:25:40 -0500 Original-Received: from mail by monty-python.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.24) id 1AjjVr-0006LL-85 for guile-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 22 Jan 2004 13:25:38 -0500 Original-Received: from [129.22.104.62] (helo=lewis.CNS.CWRU.Edu) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.24) id 1AjjU8-0005NI-Vi for guile-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 22 Jan 2004 13:23:21 -0500 Original-Received: from conversion-daemon.smtp-b.cwru.edu by smtp-b.cwru.edu (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.14 (built Mar 18 2003)) id <0HRW00601LMG3K@smtp-b.cwru.edu> for guile-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 22 Jan 2004 13:22:39 -0500 (EST) Original-Received: from multivac.cwru.edu (multivac.ITS.CWRU.Edu [129.22.114.26]) by smtp-b.cwru.edu (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.14 (built Mar 18 2003)) with SMTP id <0HRW005Q2LPRPZ@smtp-b.cwru.edu> for guile-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 22 Jan 2004 13:22:39 -0500 (EST) Original-Received: (qmail 8230 invoked by uid 500); Thu, 22 Jan 2004 18:23:01 +0000 In-reply-to: <40101199.8050801@ogopogo.biz> Original-To: Pierre Bernatchez Mail-followup-to: Pierre Bernatchez , guile-devel@gnu.org Mail-Copies-To: nobody User-Agent: Gnus/5.110002 (No Gnus v0.2) Emacs/21.3 (gnu/linux) Original-Lines: 47 X-BeenThere: guile-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.2 Precedence: list List-Id: Developers list for Guile, the GNU extensibility library List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.lisp.guile.devel:3283 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.lisp.guile.devel:3283 [IANAL.] Pierre Bernatchez wrote: > GNU's role is to provide advice, guidelines and > a rallying point, not dictating decisions. > Leadership not autocracy, the decisions are for > participants to arrive at by consensus. AIUI, the FSF also takes on the responsibility of legally defending the copyright and license of some free software. For a given package to benefit from this protection, its copyright must be assigned to the FSF; the FSF is not able to defend it otherwise. But since the FSF is the copyright holder, they are entirely within their rights to decide what license to use - since they are taking on the burden of defending the license, it's reasonable that they should get to choose which license to defend. For your own code and documentation, if you don't want the FSF to decide the license, don't assign copyright. It's a tradeoff, and the choice is yours to make. For the code and documentation of Guile, the contributors have already made their respective choices. The same issues would arise if a single individual, instead of an organization, were handling this legal work. On these issues, you can relate to the FSF just as you would relate to another individual. > GFDL raises questions for which adequate answers > have yet to be given. I agree. > The correct default, pending further debate should be > the status quo, what our community has been doing all along, > publishing both source and its documentation under the same > license. AIUI, Marius isn't legally entitled to decide the license anyway. If you want the license to change, you'll have to make this argument to the FSF's legal decision-makers. It may be that the FSF delegates this legal decision-making power to each package maintainer and merely provides recommendations instead of exercising its authority directly, but I'm unaware of it, and it would surprise me. paul _______________________________________________ Guile-devel mailing list Guile-devel@gnu.org http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-devel