[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract

On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 08:58:23AM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 01:49:41PM +0100, Simon Richter wrote:
> > The binutils package generates part of its documentation from header 
> > files in order to get the structures and constants right. The headers 
> > are GPLed, the compiled documentation is under the GFDL. For this 
> > relicensing to happen, one must be the copyright holder, or have an 
> > appropriate license, which after a quick glance does not seem to be 
> > there. Thus, only the FSF may build the binutils package. I'd be very 
> > surprised if that were to meet your definition of free software.

> Isn't it obviously the copyright holder's intention that you be able to
> build the software, including the automatic relicensing? Isn't there an
> implicit grant of permission?

No.  What good is an implicit grant of permission under copyright law?

It's probably not an intended effect, but that doesn't mean it couldn't be
exploited to harm us if we leave it unaddressed.  (Not necessarily by the
current FSF regime, but copyrights can be transferred, yadda yadda.)

Steve Langasek                   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer                   to set it on, and I can move the world.
vorlon@debian.org                                   http://www.debian.org/

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: