Re: If not GFDL, then what?
Peter S Galbraith <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> Brian T. Sniffen <email@example.com> wrote:
>> MJ Ray <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
>> > On 2003-10-13 19:58:58 +0100 Brian T. Sniffen <email@example.com> 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...
Did you mean "can't" here? My expectation is that the FSF treats a
Debian package as more of a portmanteau document than as a program,
and so would call this mere aggregation.
Let's say Alice's installer uses secret-sharing or error-correcting
codes to meld the program and the documentation, then produce separate
works from them.