Re: DFSG4 and combined works
On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 09:08:54PM +0000, Roger Leigh wrote:
> Anton Zinoviev <anton@lml.bas.bg> writes:
>
> > On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 11:55:34AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> >> Anton Zinoviev <anton@lml.bas.bg> writes:
> >>
> >> > If GDB were under BSD, you could:
> >> >
> >> > 1. Add docstrings to the sources of GDB in a way permissible by
> >> > GFDL. In particular the invariant sections should be present in
> >> > all opaque copies of the produced documentation. GFDL does not
> >> > place restrictions on how the invariant sections are present in
> >> > the transparent form, so it is enough if they exist in separate
> >> > files.
> >> >
> >> > 2. Add the text of the BSD license in a new invariant section.
> >> >
> >> > 3. Use the following license for the new GDB sources:
> >> >
> >> > Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify THE NAME
> >> > under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version
> >> > 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software
> >> > Foundation; with with the Invariant Sections being LIST THEIR
> >> > TITLES, with the Front-Cover Texts being LIST, and with the
> >> > Back-Cover Texts being LIST.
> >> >
> >> > Additionally, you have permission to use the non-commented parts
> >> > of the sources of THE NAME under the following license:
> >> >
> >> > INCLUDE THE BSD LICENSE HERE
> >>
> >> And the result would be a *non-free program*.
> >
> > This is strange. :-) The program is covered under BSD license and you
> > say it is non-free.
>
> Anton, please consider what you are writing before posting. What you
> wrote is content free and completely uninformative (as was the post
> you are replying to). There is no explanation at all, so we are non
> the wiser than had you not posted at all. This is not at all helpful.
Thomas wrote "the result would be a *non-free program*" and I replied
by "the program is covered under BSD license". There is no way for me
to know whether he noticed that fact and I think it would be impolite
to ask him directly. That said, I agree that the comment "This is
strange" was not completely appropriate. I had to write "Could you
explain this. Please, notice that the program is covered by BSD
license."
Returning back to the topic, we have the following situation:
1. The binary form of GDB would be covered under BSD license
2. The source files used to build GDB would be covered under
combination of licenses that permits to modify them in every
possible way.
Anton Zinoviev
Reply to: