From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 30118 invoked by alias); 8 May 2006 21:24:52 -0000 Received: (qmail 30109 invoked by uid 22791); 8 May 2006 21:24:52 -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; Mon, 08 May 2006 21:24:50 +0000 Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 (IGLD-84-228-142-230.inter.net.il [84.228.142.230]) by nitzan.inter.net.il (MOS 3.7.3-GA) with ESMTP id DHR61545 (AUTH halo1); Tue, 9 May 2006 00:19:18 +0300 (IDT) Date: Mon, 08 May 2006 21:24:00 -0000 Message-Id: From: Eli Zaretskii To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org In-reply-to: <20060508210440.GA18323@nevyn.them.org> (message from Daniel Jacobowitz on Mon, 8 May 2006 17:04:40 -0400) Subject: Re: [rfa] License clarification for observer.texi Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii References: <20060508210440.GA18323@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/msg00160.txt.bz2 > 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? > 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?