Bob Friesenhahn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Autoconf.texi is not part of a program. The texinfo.tex file could be
> (weakly) construed to be part of a program since it defines
> macros.
But autoconf.texi also defines and uses macros. And even if it
didn't, one can think of the non-macro part
Bob Friesenhahn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> One approach that Autoconf could take is to provide a special
> exception so that any sample code copied from the documentation is
> licensed under the GPL or LGPL rather than GFDL.
Thanks for this suggestion. At the end of this message is a proposed
>>> "Paul" == Paul Eggert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
Paul> * doc/autoconf.texi (@copying): Allow programs in this
Paul> manual to be copied under the GPL.
[...]
Sounds sensible to me. The last sentence of fdl.texi is
If your document contains nontrivial examples of program code, we
On Sun, 19 Dec 2004, Paul Eggert wrote:
Bob Friesenhahn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Autoconf.texi is not part of a program. The texinfo.tex file could be
(weakly) construed to be part of a program since it defines
macros.
But autoconf.texi also defines and uses macros. And even if it
didn't, one
On Sun, 19 Dec 2004, Paul Eggert wrote:
Bob Friesenhahn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
One approach that Autoconf could take is to provide a special
exception so that any sample code copied from the documentation is
licensed under the GPL or LGPL rather than GFDL.
Thanks for this suggestion. At the e
On Sun, 19 Dec 2004, Alexandre Duret-Lutz wrote:
"Paul" == Paul Eggert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
Paul> * doc/autoconf.texi (@copying): Allow programs in this
Paul> manual to be copied under the GPL.
[...]
Sounds sensible to me. The last sentence of fdl.texi is
If your document contains no
On Sun, 19 Dec 2004, Paul Eggert wrote:
> > One approach that Autoconf could take is to provide a special
> > exception so that any sample code copied from the documentation is
> > licensed under the GPL or LGPL rather than GFDL.
>
> Thanks for this suggestion. At the end of this message is a pro
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Paul Eggert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Bob Friesenhahn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> One approach that Autoconf could take is to provide a special
>> exception so that any sample code copied from the documentation is
>> licensed under the GPL or
Paul Eggert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Bob Friesenhahn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> One approach that Autoconf could take is to provide a special exception
>> so that any sample code copied from the documentation is licensed under
>> the GPL or LGPL rather than GFDL.
> Thanks for this sugges
On Sun, 19 Dec 2004, Roger Leigh wrote:
> However, the manual is still licensed under the terms of the GFDL, a
> licence which is not considered to meet the requirements of the Debian
> Free Software Guidelines. Therefore I believe it is not possible to
Debian-legal (and many Debian developers) c
On Sunday 19 December 2004 08:49 am, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
> On Sun, 19 Dec 2004, Alexandre Duret-Lutz wrote:
What if you simply stated:
Any programming examples incorporated into this document are
hereby released to the public domain and are free for anybody to
use any way they like.
11 matches
Mail list logo