Re: If not GFDL, then what?
Brian T. Sniffen <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> MJ Ray <email@example.com> writes:
> > On 2003-10-13 19:58:58 +0100 Brian T. Sniffen <firstname.lastname@example.org> 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?
> Let's say Alice distributes them as an InstallShield(tm) program, or
> as a shar-style archive: an installer program which installs the
> documentation and the useful program. Certainly nobody can make such
> an installer -- which is a derived work -- except Alice.
Or as a Debian package?
Are you arguing that we can distribute GFDL and GPL contents in the
same package? You'd be the first...