At 2023-05-26T16:10:47+0200, Alejandro Colomar wrote: > On 5/26/23 15:15, G. Branden Robinson wrote: > > I suggest taking a few days to shake out some points (it's going to > > be a holiday weekend in the U.S. anyway, so some engineers may > > already be on PTO), and then re-announce the relicensing effort > > subsequently. > > I'll go on trip around Europe for a couple of weeks starting this > weekend, so I'll be relatively quiet for some time. :) I'm sure you can guess what I hope is released by the time you return. > > I see from your follow-up email that _this_ is the one Fedora > > claimed to have a Freeness problem with. Can we scare up a cite for > > which one, exactly, they were referring to? The concern their > > determination causes me is that _none_ of the four license you > > present here explicitly grant permission to translate. > > Sorry, I was already confused with so many threads. So, there's one > more license, not derived from these, but which seems related to GPL. > It's the LDP (v1) license. That's the one that was rejected by > Fedora: > > <https://gitlab.com/fedora/legal/fedora-license-data/-/issues/211> > > The reason was the prohibition to recommend an info manual. Ahhh. Here it is. >> You may modify your copy or copies of the Document or any portion of >> it, thus forming a work based on the Document, and copy and >> distribute such modifications or work under the terms of Section 1 >> above, provided that you also meet all of these conditions: [. . .] >> c) You must not add notes to the Document implying that the reader >> had better read something produced using Texinfo. Hah! That's actually funny to me (and maybe to anyone who's shared a discussion thread with Eli Zaretskii). But I don't think it belongs in a license. > I confused that thread, with the one about VERBATIM_TWO_PARA, in which > you accused it of also being non-free. > > <https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/issues/1947#issuecomment-1554695533> Well, hang on--I was extrapolating from inadequate information. I said I didn't _know_ if permission to modify implied permission to translate, though I have reason to fear it doesn't, and I dropped the IANAL and TINLA disclaimers to cover my rear. SPDX has real copyright lawyers. Let them opine. If the Fedora Project doesn't have a problem with the LaTeX 2e/"traditional GNU documentation" license missing its translation permission paragraph, then I do not propose that they acquire such a problem. But I think if we're going to go to the trouble of a relicensing push, we might as well employ all four clauses of LaTeX 2e/tGdl while we're at it. > They renamed GPL-2.0 to GPL-2.0-only, AFAIK. Ah. That seems likely to have been of much higher impact. Regards, Branden
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
