Re: [OctDev] Clarification about PDF file license
* David Bateman <David.Bateman@motorola.com> [2008-04-18 10:35]:
> That being the case a GPL compatible documentation license would be a
> better solution. Can you please suggest an appropriate modification of
> the documentation license to make it GPL compatible. I see no issues
> making this change as all of the documentation in fixed.txi and
> comms.txi was written by me and I have a release from my employer for
> fixed.txi, and the bits from other authors in the final PDF are all from
> GPLed sources.. Therefore changing to a GPL compatible documentation
> license is the easiest solution. But please suggest one.......
Question to the debian-legal crowd:
Would a less-constraining version of GFDL be okay in this case? There are
packages in Debian for which the .info file is released under these terms:
Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this
document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License,
Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software
Foundation; with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and
no Back-Cover Texts. A copy of the license is included in the
section entitled "GNU Free Documentation License".
which are DFSG-compatible. The manual contains scraps of the function
documentation strings contained in the *.el files, which are GPL'ed. One
example of this is the remember-el package. If you type "info remember" you
will see the license above and if you type:
info -f remember-el.info -n 'Function Reference'
then you will see the documentation strings taken from
/usr/share/emacs/site-lisp/remember-el/*.el
--
Rafael
Reply to: