[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Gneuralnetwork] license of the documentation [was: documentation]

From: Jean Michel Sellier
Subject: Re: [Gneuralnetwork] license of the documentation [was: documentation]
Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2016 20:31:20 +0100

Again a very short answer to a very long story ;)

As a maintainer of a GNU package I have the responsibility to deliver a manual under a free license:

Of course, this does not stops anybody to write a manual on a GNU package and sell it under a "proprietary form". In fact, think of Octave. It is a GNU package but you have plenty of manuals on Amazon which are not released under GFDL.

I hope this answers to your question somehow.


2016-03-23 20:17 GMT+01:00 Ivan F. V. B. <address@hidden>:
* Jean Michel Sellier <address@hidden> [2016-03-23 19:33]:
> 2016-03-23 19:13 GMT+01:00 Ivan F. V. B. <address@hidden>:

> > [... see below]
> > What do you think on licensing the documentation under the CC-BY-SA 4.0?

> If we have to write a proper documentation for a GNU package it will be
> under GFDL. There is no other way to proceed in my opinion. But many thanks
> for doing this search.

I understand from your answer that any GNU package has to publish its
documentation under the GFDL, please correct me if not.

Then, given your answer, and also for logical reasons, I must keep the
premise under close scrutiny: must GNeuralNetwork be a GNU package, and

Side node: I love the FSF and even more its principles, specially
materialized in the GPL, but not all of the FSF is good. The GPL is
great though and one reason that has attracted me to this project.

Ivan F. V. B.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]