Re: Libiberty licensing problems & solutions [DRAFT]

Re: Libiberty licensing problems & solutions [DRAFT]

[Nathanael Nerode]

Joseph Myers said:
>Apart from this, libiberty manual licensing is a mess in other ways

I'm not touching the manual licensing at the moment.  I'm opposed to the 
GFDL, particularly with "Invariant Sections", and so I'm not going to do 
anything to help it.

I may request that the manual be relicensed at some point, but I'm 
trying to separate that from the hopefully non-controversial 
relicensings I'm discussing in my draft letter.

--Nathanael

Re: Libiberty licensing problems & solutions [DRAFT]

[Eli Zaretskii]

> Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2003 15:32:58 -0400
> From: Nathanael Nerode <neroden@twcny.rr.com>
> 
> I'm opposed to the GFDL, particularly with "Invariant Sections"

Can you tell why?

<20030603193258.GA32189@doctormoo> <7458-Wed04Jun2003062758+0300-eliz@elta.co.il>

[Kelley Cook]

>> Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2003 15:32:58 -0400
>> From: Nathanael Nerode <neroden@twcny.rr.com>
>> 
>> I'm opposed to the GFDL, particularly with "Invariant Sections"
> 
> Can you tell why?

Please do not continue this subthread on the gdb, gcc, or binutils lists as is it is not on-topic.

A lively discussion on this topic which does include RMS, has been going on the Debian-Legal ListServ (http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/) for months now.  

Feel free to peruse their mail archive or Google for "Debian GFDL" for details on the debate.

I am speaking purely an outsider.  If anyone thinks that I shouldn't have said this, please email me directly.

Kelley Cook

Re: Libiberty licensing problems & solutions [DRAFT]

[Kelley Cook]

>> Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2003 15:32:58 -0400
>> From: Nathanael Nerode <neroden@twcny.rr.com>
>> 
>> I'm opposed to the GFDL, particularly with "Invariant Sections"
> 
> Can you tell why?

Please do not continue this subthread on the gdb, gcc, or binutils lists 
as is it is not on-topic.

A lively discussion on this topic which does include RMS, has been going 
on the Debian-Legal ListServ (http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/) for 
months now.

Feel free to peruse their mail archive or Google for "Debian GFDL" for 
details on the debate.

I am speaking purely an outsider.  If anyone thinks that I shouldn't 
have said this, please email me directly.

Kelley Cook

BTW, Sorry about the duplicate message.

Re: Libiberty licensing problems & solutions [DRAFT]

[David Carlton]

On Wed, 04 Jun 2003 09:43:32 -0400, Kelley Cook <kcook34@ford.com> said:

>>> Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2003 15:32:58 -0400
>>> From: Nathanael Nerode <neroden@twcny.rr.com>

>>> I'm opposed to the GFDL, particularly with "Invariant Sections"

>> Can you tell why?

> Please do not continue this subthread on the gdb, gcc, or binutils
> lists as is it is not on-topic.

> A lively discussion on this topic which does include RMS, has been
> going on the Debian-Legal ListServ
> (http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/) for months now.

Thanks for the reference; interesting.  I'm not at all impressed by
the FSF's behavior in this instance. :-(  Of course, it's not like
I've been contributing much to GDB's manual in the first place...

David Carlton
carlton@math.stanford.edu

Re: Libiberty licensing problems & solutions [DRAFT]

[David Carlton]

On 04 Jun 2003 10:25:27 -0700, David Carlton <carlton@math.stanford.edu> said:

> Thanks for the reference; interesting.  I'm not at all impressed by
> the FSF's behavior in this instance. :-(  Of course, it's not like
> I've been contributing much to GDB's manual in the first place...

And, for that matter, I have no idea if the one contribution to the
manual that I made is valid.  I don't have a copy of the assignment
that I initially signed at hand, but more recent assigments that I
have around say things like:

+   The Released Category comprises

+ (a) changes and enhancements to software already (as of the time such
+ change or enhancement is made) freely circulating under stated terms
+ permitting public redistribution, whether in the public domain, or
+ under the FSF's GNU General Public License, or under the FSF's GNU
+ Lesser General Public License (a.k.a. the GNU Library General Public
+ License), or under other such terms; and

Documentation isn't software, and even if it were, the GFDL isn't
mentioned explicitly, and I personally wouldn't consider the GFDL to
be "other such terms" (e.g. it's not GPL-compatible).  So if that's
supposed to cover changes to manuals licensed under the GFDL, then it
seems to me that, at the very least, the FSF should make that more
explicit.

Sigh.

David Carlton
carlton@math.stanford.edu

Re: Libiberty licensing problems & solutions [DRAFT]

[Mike Stump]

On Tuesday, June 3, 2003, at 08:27 PM, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
>> Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2003 15:32:58 -0400
>> From: Nathanael Nerode <neroden@twcny.rr.com>
>>
>> I'm opposed to the GFDL, particularly with "Invariant Sections"
>
> Can you tell why?

It removes a freedom, the freedom to create arbitrary modifications of 
the source for distribution.  This is one of the central concepts of 
free software.

This topic is more appropriate for gnu.misc.discuss.