Re: Overview of copyright issues + Debian

[Graham Percival]

On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 03:10:53PM +0200, Joseph Wakeling wrote:
> > (There are a significant number of files distributed in lilypond which
> > are under v2 or later, or v3 or later, as well as things like
> > input/mutopia/claop.py, which isn't even Free Software, as it cannot
> > be modified.[2])
> 
> If I'm not mistaken, isn't that file only used for a regression test?
> How does that affect the situation?

It's still in the source tree, and thus should be removed before
Debian redistributes it.

> > I'd personally prefer it if documentation was at least licensed under
> > the same license as the code to allow for easily inclusion of code
> > examples (and to obviate the problems I [and Debian] have with
> > specific aspects of the GFDL.) It certainly can be dual licensed under
> > GFDL >= v1.1 + GPL >= v2, though.
> 
> AFAIK the docs have always been GFDLv1.1 -- I don't think we can
> unilaterally relicense them.

Docs have always been FDLv1.1 or later.  I was thinking about
unilaterially changing them to FDLv1.3 or later, as soon as I've
got GUB working.

Cheers,
- Graham