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

[Sylvain Beucler]

On Sun, Mar 12, 2006 at 08:59:24AM -0800, Walter Landry wrote:
> Sylvain Beucler <address@hidden> wrote:
> > On Sun, Feb 26, 2006 at 10:55:44PM -0800, Walter Landry wrote:
> > > Sylvain Beucler <address@hidden> wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Feb 20, 2006 at 12:09:53PM -0800, Walter Landry wrote:
> > > > >   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.
> > > 
> > > The difference between incorporating the text directly into the
> > > program and reading it at runtime is precisely the difference between
> > > static and dynamic linking.  It makes no difference to the GPL.
> > 
> > I do not think this is the case; if it were true, all code managed
> > using ArX would have to be covered by the GNU GPL as well.
> 
> Only if you were distributing ArX along with the other program in a
> way that made it a "whole".  Managing code with ArX does not
> distribute ArX.
> 
> > That is not linking, that is data processing.
> 
> You can call it whatever you want.  The GPL does not care what words
> you use, but what the effect is.

I forwarded this message and a sum-up to address@hidden, who should
provide us with lawyer advice :)

> > > > >   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?
> > > 
> > > I will only use the same license for documentation and code.  Everyone
> > > agrees that the GFDL is not a free license when applied to code.  So
> > > no, I will not dual license the manual.
> > > 
> > > > If that is not an option for you, we will ask you to host the manual
> > > > at another place.
> > > 
> > > Are you really going to kick me off of Savannah because I only use the
> > > GNU GPL?
> > 
> > I say that you cannot host the _manual_ at Savannah if there is no way
> > to use it under the GFDL (optionaly in addition to other licenses).
> 
> Why would I give out broken tarballs at Savannah?  If I have found a
> new home for the documentation, I would rather just release everything
> from there.
> 
> So again I am asking, are you really going to kick me off of Savannah
> because I use the GPL?

You won't have me say such a thing.
My previous reply was clear enough.

-- 
Sylvain