Re: DFSG4 and combined works
Anton Zinoviev <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> If the binary doesn't even depend on the auxiliary opaque copy for its
> work then there is no reason to consider them combined works. Many
> GPL-covered programs can print the text of GPL but this doesn't mean
> that the text of GPL is part of these programs (the text of GPL can
> not be part of these programs because it is covered under incompatible
> with GPL non-free license).
We're talking about a binary which is so integrated that it snarfs
bits of documentation and prints them as docstrings, in which the only
reason the docstrings are separate is to attempt to defeat the
legal inability to include them directly.