From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 28679 invoked by alias); 9 May 2006 04:06:09 -0000 Received: (qmail 28667 invoked by uid 22791); 9 May 2006 04:06:07 -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; Tue, 09 May 2006 04:05:47 +0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.54) id 1FdJTm-0006oN-0c for gdb-patches@sourceware.org; Tue, 09 May 2006 00:05:46 -0400 Date: Tue, 09 May 2006 04:06:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [rfa] License clarification for observer.texi Message-ID: <20060509040545.GA26150@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <20060508210440.GA18323@nevyn.them.org> <20060508221835.GA20262@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/msg00163.txt.bz2 On Tue, May 09, 2006 at 06:32:42AM +0300, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > Date: Mon, 8 May 2006 18:18:35 -0400 > > From: Daniel Jacobowitz > > Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org > > > > Debian no longer permits the distribution of FDL'd works in the "main" > > distribution. > > Ah, it's _that_ issue. > > > I am not permitted to include GFDL documentation in the main > > tarball, but I must include observers.texi, in order to build GDB. > > Why can't you simply include the generated observers.h in the main > tarball? It has the right license. Because that would, in my opinion, violate at least the spirit of the GPL. "Preferred source for modification" is not that file, but the manual. > Anyway, I'm uneasy about making such a change because of the Debian's > controversy. When faced with issues like this (i.e. the same source > that is used to produce both code and documentation), RMS always said > that in practice this isn't a problem, since either the produced docs > or the produced code is of insignificant amount. So if distributing > observers.h is somehow not an option, I think we should ask Richard > for guidance. I suppose I will have to do that, then. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery