From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 7825 invoked by alias); 8 May 2006 22:18:40 -0000 Received: (qmail 7817 invoked by uid 22791); 8 May 2006 22:18:40 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from nevyn.them.org (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31.1) with ESMTP; Mon, 08 May 2006 22:18:37 +0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.54) id 1FdE3n-0005NL-NY; Mon, 08 May 2006 18:18:35 -0400 Date: Mon, 08 May 2006 22:18:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Eli Zaretskii Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [rfa] License clarification for observer.texi Message-ID: <20060508221835.GA20262@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Eli Zaretskii , gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <20060508210440.GA18323@nevyn.them.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.8i X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2006-05/txt/msg00161.txt.bz2 On Tue, May 09, 2006 at 12:19:20AM +0300, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > Date: Mon, 8 May 2006 17:04:40 -0400 > > From: Daniel Jacobowitz > > > > The file is included directly into the manual, so must be covered by the > > GFDL. But the header file generated from it by observer.sh (gdb/observer.h > > in the build tree) has a GPL notice added. The GFDL and GPL are not > > compatible to this degree. Even the FSF agrees about this - the > > FDL suggests releasing code fragments under the GPL in parallel to including > > them in the manual. > > > > So, this patch marks observer.texi as distributable under both licenses. > > Perhaps I'm missing something, but I don't see any need to do this. > observer.sh already puts a GPL blurb into observer.h, so why would we > need to add GPL to observer.texi? There's no real code in the > portions extracted to observer.h to justify any level of bother, IMO. > > What were the problems raised on debian-legal, and did they consult > the FSF? The problem was that the code generated by observer.sh is based on the input file observer.texi. I remember reading RMS's position on a similar case recently; tools which process input files into source code are encouraged to go a step beyond what I implemented, and actually pass the license of the input file through to the output file. For instance, flex does this. [Bison is a bit of a different story. It includes its own copyright, because the skeleton is non-trivial. You can also pass a copyright notice through, all though GDB doesn't - just include it in %{}.] For reasons I really am not interested in discussing (because I think the entire affair is very unfortunate, and I don't agree with the changes - but it is my responsibility to honor the project's decision), Debian no longer permits the distribution of FDL'd works in the "main" distribution. This means that I must separate the GDB tarball into two parts, one suitable for "main" and the other suitable for the "non-free" distribution. I am not permitted to include GFDL documentation in the main tarball, but I must include observers.texi, in order to build GDB. (Or regenerate the observers list without using observers.texi, which I could certainly do, but I think is silly.) As an aside, one reason it's taken me so long to do this is that I refuse to take the easy way out and just not ship the manual. I use it every day; even if Debian users have to dig a little deeper to find a copy, I will make sure one is available. I'd rather do nothing at all, but I don't seem to have that option. > > Does anyone disapprove of this change? Or, feel sufficiently concerned by > > it that you would prefer I contact the FSF to confirm? I don't feel that it > > is necessary, since I am dealing strictly with the FSF's preferred licenses > > for code and for manuals, and strictly for manual already used as code. > > If the two licenses are incompatible, how do we know we can distribute > a file under both of them? As the copyright holder, the FSF can give permission to distribute it under any license or set of licenses. "Incompatible" only means that data covered under one license can not be automatically included in a work covered by the other license - you get to choose one of a set of licenses at a time when using the licensed work. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery