Re: [Savannah-hackers-public] News: Licenses clarification

[Sylvain Beucler]

On Mon, Feb 20, 2006 at 12:09:53PM -0800, Walter Landry wrote:
> Sylvain Beucler <address@hidden> wrote:
> > On Sat, Feb 18, 2006 at 02:40:09PM -0800, Walter Landry wrote:
> > > Sylvain Beucler <address@hidden> wrote:
> > > > >   2) My project includes a 56 page manual under GPL v2 only.  The only
> > > > >      license I will use for documentation is the same as for the code.
> > > > >      Since even RMS does not think that the GFDL is a free software
> > > > >      license [3], that rules out the GFDL.
> > > > 
> > > > This is a borderline case since the source for the manual is not
> > > > hosted at Savannah, but the manual is still available at
> > > > www.nongnu.org.
> > > 
> > > The manual's source is available in the tarball available from Savannah.
> > > 
> > > > Is there a precise reason why the manual's license is bound to ArX's?
> > > 
> > > Because I want to be able to intermix code and documentation.
> > 
> > What do you mean by intermix?
> > 
> > For example if you want to include bits of text from the manual in the
> > program output, you can do so by fetching the text at run time
> > independently of the licenses.
> 
> There are three problems here:
> 
>   1) This won't work in all cases.  For example, taking a comment and
>      incorporating it into the manual or vice-versa.  It also makes
>      the program more fragile, because it is no longer self contained.
> 
>   2) This runs afoul of section 2 of the GPL, the relevant part of which is
> 
>        But when you distribute the same sections as part of a whole
>        which is a work based on the Program, the distribution of the
>        whole must be on the terms of this License, whose permissions
>        for other licensees extend to the entire whole, and thus to
>        each and every part regardless of who wrote it.

When you have an application display an image, the image need not be
released under a license compatible with the application's. I'm pretty
sure it is the same case for displaying bits of documentation.


>   3) Unnecessary licenses conflicts are determining technical details.


I understand those concerns.

I apologize for entering a "Why do you use the GNU GPL" debate, this
was actually a bit off-topic. The real question is: would you mind
dual-licensing your manual, to fit both your concerns and ours?

If that is not an option for you, we will ask you to host the manual
at another place.

Thanks and best regards,

-- 
Sylvain