Anton Zinoviev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 02:30:43PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: >> Anton Zinoviev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> >> > On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 11:55:11AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: >> >> >> >> But that isn't my point. My point is that you can't include the >> >> GFDL'd material in any free program. (Or, by doing so, you render the >> >> program non-free.) This is not controversial; even the FSF agrees. >> > >> > This won't be true if you use dual licensing. I showed one way to >> > achieve this in http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2006/02/msg00472.html >> >> However, the resulting program is *not* a free program! >> >> I cannot include GFDL'd text in a BSD-licensed program without >> *changing the license to require the GFDL's terms*. > > I suppose we are talking about different things. Notice that the > procedure I proposed places all pieces taken from the manual inside > comments. The binary of GDB doesn't depend on the comments and thats > why you can choose the BSD license for it.
I'm talking about *doc strings*. Doc strings do not live inside the comments. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
