From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 7246 invoked by alias); 9 May 2006 19:20:00 -0000 Received: (qmail 7133 invoked by uid 22791); 9 May 2006 19:19:59 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from nitzan.inter.net.il (HELO nitzan.inter.net.il) (192.114.186.20) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Tue, 09 May 2006 19:19:57 +0000 Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 (IGLD-80-230-156-30.inter.net.il [80.230.156.30]) by nitzan.inter.net.il (MOS 3.7.3-GA) with ESMTP id DHX10741 (AUTH halo1); Tue, 9 May 2006 22:16:09 +0300 (IDT) Date: Tue, 09 May 2006 19:20:00 -0000 Message-Id: From: Eli Zaretskii To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org In-reply-to: <20060509125922.GA2808@nevyn.them.org> (message from Daniel Jacobowitz on Tue, 9 May 2006 08:59:22 -0400) Subject: Re: [rfa] License clarification for observer.texi Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii References: <20060508210440.GA18323@nevyn.them.org> <20060508221835.GA20262@nevyn.them.org> <20060509125922.GA2808@nevyn.them.org> 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/msg00175.txt.bz2 > Date: Tue, 9 May 2006 08:59:22 -0400 > From: Daniel Jacobowitz > > Small supporting files, short manuals (under 300 lines long) and rough > documentation (README files, INSTALL files, etc) can use a simple > all-permissive license like this one: > > Copying and distribution of this file, with or without modification, > are permitted in any medium without royalty provided the copyright > notice and this notice are preserved. > > I think this applies to observers.texi; how about you? It is certainly shorter than 300 lines, so it sounds like it's okay to release it under the simplified license. > If you'd prefer it to be covered by the GFDL, I'll inquire with the FSF. I think only the full manual needs to be covered by the GFDL. 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.