Hello, Follow the requirement to use (at least) the GFDL for Savannah-hosted manuals, we have a question about the use of such manual in an integrated help system.
In this forwarded message I argue that if, at runtime, a GNU GPL'd application open the file containing the GFDL'd documentation and display the relevant contextual bits to the user, then there is no copyright issue. Likewise I think a GNU GPL'd application can display any (free) picture during its execution without licensing issue. Walter, on the contrary, argues that this is a combination of 2 works under incompatible licenses, and hence there is a copyright infrigement. Similar to object-code linking. May we have your point? Thanks, -- Sylvain ----- Forwarded message from Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ----- Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2006 08:59:24 -0800 (PST) To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [Savannah-hackers-public] News: Licenses clarification From: Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> X-Mailer: Mew version 4.2 on Emacs 21.4 / Mule 5.0 (SAKAKI) Sylvain Beucler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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. Only if you were distributing ArX along with the other program in a way that made it a "whole". Managing code with ArX does not distribute ArX. > That is not linking, that is data processing. You can call it whatever you want. The GPL does not care what words you use, but what the effect is. > > > > 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). Why would I give out broken tarballs at Savannah? If I have found a new home for the documentation, I would rather just release everything from there. So again I am asking, are you really going to kick me off of Savannah because I use the GPL? Cheers, Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] ----- End forwarded message -----
