Re: If not GFDL, then what?
MJ Ray said:
> On 2003-10-13 19:58:58 +0100 Brian T. Sniffen <email@example.com> wrote:
>> Alice distributes a program, under the GPL, and a documentation
>> package for that program under the GFDL. Because she is the copyright
>> holder, she distributes them together. Nobody else can redistribute
>> this as a single integral package, of course.
> I'm not convinced by this step in the reasoning. If they are merely
> aggregated, surely others can distribute them in the same packaging?
> If they are a single work under two incompatible licences, can anyone
> else distribute it at all, even split?
The GFDL includes the following definition:
FDL> A "Modified Version" of the Document means any work containing the
FDL> Document or a portion of it, either copied verbatim, or with
FDL> modifications and/or translated into another language.
The GFDL requires that "Modified Version"s be distributed under the GFDL.
Your aggregate contains the Document.
(For comparison, the GPL does not define "Derivative Work", but instead
defers to the definition according to Copyright law.)