[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

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

From: Walter Landry
Subject: Re: [Savannah-hackers-public] News: Licenses clarification
Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2006 22:55:44 -0800 (PST)

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.

> >   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

Walter Landry

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]