From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 13344 invoked by alias); 9 May 2006 19:27:25 -0000 Received: (qmail 13334 invoked by uid 22791); 9 May 2006 19:27:24 -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 19:27:23 +0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.54) id 1FdXrd-0003WP-8Q for gdb-patches@sourceware.org; Tue, 09 May 2006 15:27:21 -0400 Date: Tue, 09 May 2006 19:27:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [rfa] License clarification for observer.texi Message-ID: <20060509192721.GA13403@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <20060508210440.GA18323@nevyn.them.org> <20060508221835.GA20262@nevyn.them.org> <20060509125922.GA2808@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/msg00176.txt.bz2 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