From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 25417 invoked by alias); 4 Jun 2003 18:01:33 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 25380 invoked from network); 4 Jun 2003 18:01:32 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO jackfruit.Stanford.EDU) (171.64.38.136) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 4 Jun 2003 18:01:32 -0000 Received: (from carlton@localhost) by jackfruit.Stanford.EDU (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h54I1Vh19792; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 11:01:31 -0700 X-Authentication-Warning: jackfruit.Stanford.EDU: carlton set sender to carlton@math.stanford.edu using -f To: gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: Libiberty licensing problems & solutions [DRAFT] References: <20030603193258.GA32189@doctormoo> <7458-Wed04Jun2003062758+0300-eliz@elta.co.il> <3EDDF660.1090200@ford.com> <3EDDF784.5020908@ford.com> From: David Carlton Date: Wed, 04 Jun 2003 18:01:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.0808 (Gnus v5.8.8) XEmacs/21.4 (Common Lisp) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-SW-Source: 2003-06/txt/msg00060.txt.bz2 On 04 Jun 2003 10:25:27 -0700, David Carlton 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