I am creating a piece of documentation that is licensed under the GPL (it must be licensed this way, because I have derived information from glibc). I am also getting information from some Linux manpages. But a few manpages have licenses like this: .\" This is free documentation; you can redistribute it and/or .\" modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as .\" published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of .\" the License, or (at your option) any later version. .\" .\" The GNU General Public License's references to "object code" .\" and "executables" are to be interpreted as the output of any .\" document formatting or typesetting system, including .\" intermediate and printed output. .\" .\" This manual is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, .\" but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of .\" MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the .\" GNU General Public License for more details. .\" .\" You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public .\" License along with this manual; if not, write to the Free .\" Software Foundation, Inc., 59 Temple Place, Suite 330, Boston, MA 02111, .\" USA. The second paragraph is what I am most concerned about. Is it possible to combine a work that is pure GPL and a work that is GPL with this "interpretation clause"? No need to Cc:, I'm subscribed. -- Brian M. Carlson <sandals@crustytoothpaste.ath.cx> 0x560553e7 "Let us think the unthinkable, let us do the undoable. Let us prepare to grapple with the ineffable itself, and see if we may not eff it after all." --Douglas Adams
Attachment:
pgpjNDlTeqXC9.pgp
Description: PGP signature