Re: DFSG4 and combined works
Anton Zinoviev <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 02:30:43PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>> Anton Zinoviev <email@example.com> writes:
>> > On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 11:55:11AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>> >> But that isn't my point. My point is that you can't include the
>> >> GFDL'd material in any free program. (Or, by doing so, you render the
>> >> program non-free.) This is not controversial; even the FSF agrees.
>> > This won't be true if you use dual licensing. I showed one way to
>> > achieve this in http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2006/02/msg00472.html
>> However, the resulting program is *not* a free program!
>> I cannot include GFDL'd text in a BSD-licensed program without
>> *changing the license to require the GFDL's terms*.
> I suppose we are talking about different things. Notice that the
> procedure I proposed places all pieces taken from the manual inside
> comments. The binary of GDB doesn't depend on the comments and thats
> why you can choose the BSD license for it.
I'm talking about *doc strings*. Doc strings do not live inside the