Basile Starynkevitch wrote:
On Sat, 2010-05-29 at 16:48 -0500, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
On Sat, May 29, 2010 at 2:18 PM, Basile Starynkevitch
<bas...@starynkevitch.net> wrote:
I don't seek legal advice. I am only seeking *practical* advice.
yet, you are largely talking about legal issues in substance.
More licensing issues than legal ones. "Legal" issues are those putting
people (or entities) at risk (jail, or losing millions of euros/dollars
or whatever currency you like). We are certainly not in that case. We
are more in the case like when some old GCC code still mentionned GPLv2
while the transition was made to GPLv3. Not a big deal in practice.
Licensing issues *are* legal issues, licenses are legal documents.
What they allow and do not alloware legal issues!
Perhaps the question becomes: whom should I ask permission to add an
exception to MELT code's license to permit it to generate a *texi
documentation, or alternatively to relicense all existing melt*texi
files under GPL (so MELT documentation becomes GPL and there are no more
GFDL vs GPL conflict).
Or should I ask only my employer's lawyers if I can add such an
exception to some MELT specific files without asking anyone at FSF?
The FSF is not in the business of giving free advice to anyone on
licensing issues. *if* you do something that violates the license,
and *if* it is deemed important enough to do something about, then
the FSF *may* take some action.
