|| ||Mark Mitchell <mark-AT-codesourcery.com> |
|| ||Dave Korn <dave.korn.cygwin-AT-gmail.com> |
|| ||Re: GFDL/GPL Issue |
|| ||Wed, 02 Jun 2010 06:56:25 -0700|
|| ||GCC <gcc-AT-gcc.gnu.org>|
|| ||Article, Thread
Dave Korn wrote:
>> "If Texinfo text is included the .h files specifically to be copied into
>> a manual, it is ok to for you copy that text into a manual and release
>> the manual under the GFDL."
>> In context, "you" means "the GCC maintainers" and the permission would
>> be limited only to changes contributed to the FSF. This is specifically
>> not permission for random people to do even this outside the context of
>> the FSF repository.
> So to be clear: would redistributors be in breach if they were to ship the
> generated docs in their binary packages?
No, not if they ship the docs unmodified from the version from the FSF.
They would also not be in breach if they themselves added some new text
and regenerated the docs, since they can license their changes as they
see fit (provided, of course, that's compatible with the GPL and GFDL).
However, if I changed the code, but did not regenerate the docs, and you
then picked up my changes, possibly made more of your own, and then
regenerated the docs, *you* would be in breach. (Because my changes are
only available to you under the GPL; you do not have the right to
relicense my changes under the GFDL.)
I find that consequence undesirable. In particular, what I did is OK in
that scenario, but suddenly, now, you, are a possibly unwitting
violator. (Yes, I have confirmed the above interpretation is correct
directly with RMS.)
Because this scheme depends not on a general license exception, but
rather on particular power that the FSF has by virtue of owning the
code, the ultimate downstream recipient cannot be guaranteed that they
can rebuild the documentation.
(650) 331-3385 x713
to post comments)