On Sun, Feb 26, 2006 at 10:55:44PM -0800, Walter Landry wrote: > Sylvain Beucler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 20, 2006 at 12:09:53PM -0800, Walter Landry wrote: > > > 2) This runs afoul of section 2 of the GPL, the relevant part of which > > > is > > > > > > But when you distribute the same sections as part of a whole > > > which is a work based on the Program, the distribution of the > > > whole must be on the terms of this License, whose permissions > > > for other licensees extend to the entire whole, and thus to > > > each and every part regardless of who wrote it. > > > > When you have an application display an image, the image need not be > > released under a license compatible with the application's. I'm pretty > > sure it is the same case for displaying bits of documentation. > > The difference between incorporating the text directly into the > program and reading it at runtime is precisely the difference between > static and dynamic linking. It makes no difference to the GPL.
I do not think this is the case; if it were true, all code managed using ArX would have to be covered by the GNU GPL as well. That is not linking, that is data processing. > > > 3) Unnecessary licenses conflicts are determining technical details. > > > > > > I understand those concerns. > > > > I apologize for entering a "Why do you use the GNU GPL" debate, this > > was actually a bit off-topic. The real question is: would you mind > > dual-licensing your manual, to fit both your concerns and ours? > > I will only use the same license for documentation and code. Everyone > agrees that the GFDL is not a free license when applied to code. So > no, I will not dual license the manual. > > > If that is not an option for you, we will ask you to host the manual > > at another place. > > Are you really going to kick me off of Savannah because I only use the > GNU GPL? I say that you cannot host the _manual_ at Savannah if there is no way to use it under the GFDL (optionaly in addition to other licenses). -- Sylvain
