On Thu, 10 Sep 2009, Joseph Wakeling wrote: > Don Armstrong wrote: > > (There are a significant number of files distributed in lilypond > > which are under v2 or later, or v3 or later, as well as things > > like input/mutopia/claop.py, which isn't even Free Software, as it > > cannot be modified.[2]) > > If I'm not mistaken, isn't that file only used for a regression > test? How does that affect the situation?
It doesn't really change the situation for me, as I have to strip it out of the tarball, but it presumably doesn't affect the binary packages that I distribute. That's because everything Debian distributes has to satisfy the DFSG; whether that's an issue for you all is for you all to decide. [What would be really super for me is if during this process, those files which had non-free licenses were identified (and a conscious effort was made to identify any new ones) so that I could easily remove them.] > > I'd personally prefer it if documentation was at least licensed > > under the same license as the code to allow for easily inclusion > > of code examples (and to obviate the problems I [and Debian] have > > with specific aspects of the GFDL.) It certainly can be dual > > licensed under GFDL >= v1.1 + GPL >= v2, though. > > AFAIK the docs have always been GFDLv1.1 -- I don't think we can > unilaterally relicense them. Can you clarify the particular issue > with GFDL? I thought the Debian consensus was that GFDL is OK as > long as there are no invariant sections. Right. There are some other bits of the GFDL that I personally don't like too, but so long as there aren't invariant sections it's ok. > What does GPL imply for docs? Would it mean e.g. that someone who > distributes a PDF of the Learning Manual would have to also be > prepared to provide Texinfo sources? What I'm suggesting is that they be dual-licensed, so that someone who wanted to comply with the GFDL could do so, and alternatively, they could comply with the GPL instead. If they were *only* under the GPL, you're correct that someone distributing a PDF would also have to be prepared to provide the source code. [Though, under the GFDL, you may need to if you are copying in quantity, since the PDF is probably "Opaque".] Don Armstrong -- Americans can always be counted on to do the right thing, after they have exhausted all other possibilities. -- W. Churchill http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
