On Fri, Jun 14, 2002 at 02:36:35PM +1200, Nick Phillips wrote: > On Thu, Jun 13, 2002 at 08:43:17PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > > > Hmm, probably want to extend that to include the LGPL. > > > > > > The idea being that you can't take a DFCL-licensed work, cram it into a > > > > piece of software, and then suck it back out into a data file without > > > > having to restore the Endorsements section. > > Do you *really* need to allow the doc to be distributed under the GPL? Well, I think so, yes. People might incorporate DFCLed documentation into a C file. Think of standards documents, or just damn good manuals and damn poorly commented code. If you can convince me that the GPL will let us mingle just any old licensed thing into GPLed C files without a problem, then no, we don't need GPL compatibility. But that's going to be a tough sell. :) > 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? Uh, I'll try to put this diplomatically, but I don't believe the FSF is being entirely consistent on issues surrounding the FDL. > 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? If they're just distributed together in tarball -- if it's just "mere aggregation", then probably not, no. However, see above. The document might mingle with the source more than that. Free music, images, or textures might be integrated tightly into a game, for instance. Remember, the DFCL isn't just for manuals. -- G. Branden Robinson | The basic test of freedom is Debian GNU/Linux | perhaps less in what we are free to branden@debian.org | do than in what we are free not to http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | do. -- Eric Hoffer
Attachment:
pgpjBscKBveDw.pgp
Description: PGP signature