I'll contact upstream
reopen 183860
tags 183860 moreinfo
thanks control
I've just send a message to RMS (cc'd to this bug) asking for
clarification.
I hope we get as solution soon; however, at the moment, this appears to
be quite a valid bug. Using even marginally cautious standard of what
constitutes "a work based on [the Program] under Section 2 [of the
GPL]", the manuals qualify. Since we distribute them in an object form
(info), we must "Accompany [the Program in object code or executable
form] with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code,
which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 [of the
GPL] on a medium customarily used for software interchange."
We can not do that because the GFDL is not GPL-compatible.
Since from reading the licenses it is fairly clear that we are
violating them, we need clarification on why this is _not_ a bug, not
on why it is.
I'm requesting such clarification. Re-opening.
[ cc'd to legal so they may point flaws in my reasoning, if any. Please
don't cc control on responses! ]
Reply to: