Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract
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?
There may be good examples of GFDL/GPL interaction problems, but the
above example is absurd, IMHO.
Hamish
--
Hamish Moffatt VK3SB <hamish@debian.org> <hamish@cloud.net.au>
Reply to: