Quoting Brian T. Sniffen ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): > True. But I read the phrase "This document... explicit permission" as > saying that Appendix H has a different copyright-owner, and has been > separately distributed under the GFDL1.2. The whole work is under the > GPL2, as said at the beginning.
"Securing Debian Manual" authors Alexander Reelsen, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña stated in the front matter that they were issuing _their_ work under GPLv2 or later. Whether Mr. Ratti did or not strikes me as, unfortunately, somewhat ambiguous: Ironically for that claim of "explicit permission", _lack_ of explicitness is precisely the problem: Did he "explicitly" issue this instance of the inclusion under GPLv2 or later, under GFDL with a licence exception, or something else? (something else might not "make sense", to borrow your words, but cannot be ruled out unless you're willing to take on faith that derivative-work licensing can be assumed problem-free -- which seems a stretch. ;-> ) Fortunately, as you point out, clarification from Mr. Ratti should fix this in a hurry. -- Cheers, "He who hesitates is frost." Rick Moen -- Innuit proverb [EMAIL PROTECTED]