Re: Libiberty licensing problems & solutions [DRAFT]

David Carlton
2003-06-04T18:01:33Z

On 04 Jun 2003 10:25:27 -0700, David Carlton <carlton@math.stanford.edu> said:

> Thanks for the reference; interesting. I'm not at all impressed by
> the FSF's behavior in this instance. :-( Of course, it's not like
> I've been contributing much to GDB's manual in the first place...

And, for that matter, I have no idea if the one contribution to the
manual that I made is valid. I don't have a copy of the assignment
that I initially signed at hand, but more recent assigments that I
have around say things like:

+ The Released Category comprises

+ (a) changes and enhancements to software already (as of the time such
+ change or enhancement is made) freely circulating under stated terms
+ permitting public redistribution, whether in the public domain, or
+ under the FSF's GNU General Public License, or under the FSF's GNU
+ Lesser General Public License (a.k.a. the GNU Library General Public
+ License), or under other such terms; and

Documentation isn't software, and even if it were, the GFDL isn't
mentioned explicitly, and I personally wouldn't consider the GFDL to
be "other such terms" (e.g. it's not GPL-compatible). So if that's
supposed to cover changes to manuals licensed under the GFDL, then it
seems to me that, at the very least, the FSF should make that more
explicit.

Sigh.

David Carlton
carlton@math.stanford.edu