* dbateman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-04-06 14:50]: > Thomas Weber-8 wrote: > > > > On 06/04/08 13:09 -0700, dbateman wrote: > >> Yes it was intentional. I didn't want to add a build dependency on the > >> package on texinfo.. I suppose we might add the original documentation > >> and > >> only build it is the correct dependencies exist, though is this worth it? > >> Note the same situation is true for the fixed package. > > > > I don't know whether we actually have a choice. The documentation is > > (partly) built by copying text verbatim from GPL-licensed .m and .cc > > files. > > > > I'm no expert here, but I'd say that makes the document a derivative of > > the GPL-licensed files, meaning that the document must be licensed under > > GPL. And this means that we _must_ ship the source used for building it. > > I wrote a lot of the code in the comms toolbox (the majority in terms of > line count), and wrote the documentation. I suppose except for a couple of > corner cases, I can give permission to distribute the pdf without the source > texinfo files.. In any case what you are saying means that no one can > distribute the documentation without the source code either, this seems > rather a strange situation to me.
The situation is not clear. I will ask in debian-legal about this. -- Rafael ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by the 2008 JavaOne(SM) Conference Register now and save $200. Hurry, offer ends at 11:59 p.m., Monday, April 7! Use priority code J8TLD2. http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;198757673;13503038;p?http://java.sun.com/javaone _______________________________________________ Octave-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/octave-dev
