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. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
