On Fri, Jun 14, 2002 at 02:36:35PM +1200, Nick Phillips wrote:
> Do you *really* need to allow the doc to be distributed under the GPL?
I would like to, yes, so that people don't have to play guessing games
about how tightly they can integrate DFCLed content with their GPLed
software.
("Somebody put CHOCOLATE in my PEANUT BUTTER!" [1])
> If the FSF don't believe it's appropriate for docs to be GPLed, then
> surely they don't regard it as essential that docs contained within a
> package of GPLed software be GPLed?
>
> Essentially what I am getting at is the fact that just because a doc and
> a program are shipped in the same tarball, does this really mean that
> you need to try to cover them with the same license?
Indeed; what you're talking about is "mere aggregation":
In addition, mere aggregation of another work not based on the
Program with the Program (or with a work based on the Program)
on a volume of a storage or distribution medium does not bring
the other work under the scope of this License.
However, I do want to permit more than mere aggregation. If someone
writes help text for a GPLed program and licenses it under the DFCL, I
think it's only fair that the GPLed program be able to integrate that
help text into itself without legal barriers. Put it in its usage
message, for instance.
[1] Yes, I realize this quotation betrays my age.
--
G. Branden Robinson | You don't just decide to break
Debian GNU/Linux | Kubrick's code of silence and then
branden@debian.org | get drawn away from it to a
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | discussion about cough medicine.
Attachment:
pgpVRbPW00SFh.pgp
Description: PGP signature