Re: [rfa] License clarification for observer.texi

[Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>]

On Tue, May 09, 2006 at 10:16:11PM +0300, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> But even though I'm okay with this change, I think we should ask the
> FSF regardless, since strictly speaking this change is for Debian's
> sake, and not to pursue some FSF goal.  That is, we in effect want to
> change the license to cater to someone else's goals.  I think it's
> only fair to ask the FSF before we do it.

Debian's position is that the current state of affairs is simply
invalid - that GDB can not be legally distributed without fixing
it.  That's slightly orthogonal to fixing the FDL issue, in that they
would hammer me about fixing it even if I could leave the FDL manuals
in the package.

I'm not sure what I need to ask the FSF now?  I'd like to set the
license on the file to one which is (A) acceptable to the FSF, (B)
legally valid to include in the manual, and (C) legally valid to link
with GDB - that's pretty unambiguous and I think we've found such a
license.  But it's unrelated to needing to ship GDB without GFDL'd
files, which I do.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery