Gueven Bay wrote: > The whole document I want to release under the GPL. Most likely, you can't because Wikipedia is GFDL, last I heard.
> > So, the reason why I post here are the following questions: > 1) Is it right that the rules files are under the GPL? No. You'll have to check /usr/share/doc/PACKAGE/copyright to see what license they're under. Probably the same as the rest of the package. > 2) Is it right that the "list of files" (the contents) of a package are under > the GPL? This is just a list of facts, and as such is not copyrightable. Its in the public domain. > 3) Is it right that the descriptions of Debian packages as every user > can read under the "Description:" section of apt-cache show > are under the GPL? No. Once again, that's probably under /usr/share/doc/PACKAGE/copyright, but I don't think anyone's really wondered this before. That's a good question, though. > 2) May I mix in one page a content of wikipedia(citation) and from > Debians development notes/files/artifacts - as I learned that the GFDL > and the GPL are incompatible? o_O You probably can't mix GPL and GFDL materials (The GPL and GFDL both demand you distribute under their own terms only, and you obviously can't do both, since the terms are different). > 3) How can I accomplish a legal mix from both sources? You'd need to get permission from the copyright holders, get the FSF to fix the GFDL so its GPL-compatible (or vice versa, but I shudder at that thought!), or have Congress repeal large sections of Title 17 [or your country's legislative body do similar things to your laws]. Sorry for the bad news :-( -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
