Hi yann, any progress on this ? if you can make upstream confirm that the material is licensed under the GFDL with no invariant sections and such, this year GR makes it DFSG-free.
though I agree that only the PDF intro document speaks about GFDL, current licensing state of that package is unclear and need to be clarified. On Sat, Jan 07, 2006 at 08:22:40AM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote: > Frank Litchenheld wrote: > > the reference manual license is stated as for the generated material > > only and is by the maintainer himself. I would suggest to just declare > > GPL instead like the source code (I don't know if re-licensing the > > generated material under GFDL is even legal, but that's not the point > > here anyway) > > It's legal to *dual-license* it under the GFDL. However, if the source is > under the GPL, then the auto-generated reference manual is under the GPL, > too; that's the way it works. It would be really nice to ask the maintainer > to make that explicit, however. > > > -- ·O· Pierre Habouzit ··O [EMAIL PROTECTED] OOO http://www.madism.org
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
