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

Re: DFSG4 and combined works

Anton Zinoviev <anton@lml.bas.bg> writes:

> On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 02:30:43PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>> Anton Zinoviev <anton@lml.bas.bg> 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

Reply to: