On Fri, 18 Apr 2008 14:33:42 +0200 Rafael Laboissiere wrote: [...] > Question to the debian-legal crowd: > > Would a less-constraining version of GFDL be okay in this case?
No, unless you add so many permissions that really few GFDL features would survive... > There are > packages in Debian for which the .info file is released under these terms: > > Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this > document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, > Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software > Foundation; with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and > no Back-Cover Texts. A copy of the license is included in the > section entitled "GNU Free Documentation License". > > which are DFSG-compatible. Which is *considered* to meet the DFSG by the Debian Project as a whole through GR-2006-001. I strongly disagree with the GR outcome, but that's another story... However, these license terms are GPL-incompatible, so they are no solution for the case under consideration. > The manual contains scraps of the function > documentation strings contained in the *.el files, which are GPL'ed. One > example of this is the remember-el package. [...] If *.el files and the manual are copyrighted by the same people, they can do what they like, even this horrid license mixing... The question is whether *others* are actually allowed to distribute such a manual with incompatibly licensed parts. One could probably claim that the documentation strings are effectively dual-licensed, so no problem here. On the other hand, if *.el files are copyrighted by different people from the copyright holders of the manual, I think there's a significant license compatibility issue. Once again: IANAL, TINLA, IANADD, TINASOTODP. -- http://frx.netsons.org/doc/index.html#nanodocs The nano-document series is here! ..................................................... Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4
pgpu6LiHB6fh5.pgp
Description: PGP signature
