[Texi2html-bug] Re: FSF assignment?

[Karl Berry]

Hi Derek.

    Does a `use PLUGIN;' line in Perl qualify as "linking"?  

Seems highly probable to me.

    What about calling a method of an object instantiated from a GPL'd
    package?

Also seems highly probable to me.

    I think force them to GPL instead of their current Artistic/GPL
    license.  Similarly, the rest of Wiki::Toolkit, which is not mine, is
    also Artistic/GPL

Would it?  I'm not so sure.  It seems similar to combining a GPLv2+ work
with a GPLv3+ work to me.  The GPLv2+ work does not have to explicitly
change its license in that case.

So in this case, I don't see that the dual-licensed modules would have
to explicitly change their license, either.  It is true that anyone
using those modules in conjunction with the GPL'd texi2html module would
be using them under GPL, not Artistic, but that doesn't seem problematic
to me.  They could still be used (without texi2html) under Artistic.

    Do you have any ideas about how to approach this with rms?

Well, I can ask him with the rationale that it's conventional for CPAN
and Perl modules.  I cannot predict his response.  If there are better
freedom-promoting arguments, that would be good.  Popularity arguments
(e.g., we'd get more users with it on CPAN) aren't likely to sway him.

Also ... how close is this to fruition?  I mean, can we wait until we're
at the point of actually having texi2html in texinfo before waking up
rms?

Thanks,
Karl