On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 02:29:20PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: > Anton Zinoviev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > This is strange. :-) The program is covered under BSD license and you > > say it is non-free. > > No. The resulting program is covered under the BSD license and the > GFDL together.
This was not the license I suggested. For the non-commented parts of the source files of GDB the license I suggested gives you the right to choose between GFDL and BSD. I have the right to use such dual licensing. By placing the entire sources under GFDL I have satisfied the requirements of GDFL. On the other hand the non-commented parts do not depend on the manual in any way so I am allowed license them under BSD additionaly. The binary depends only on the non-commented parts so it is covered under BSD. Anton Zinoviev -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
