On Sun, Mar 12, 2006 at 08:59:24AM -0800, Walter Landry wrote: > 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.
I forwarded this message and a sum-up to [EMAIL PROTECTED], who should provide us with lawyer advice :) > > > > > 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? You won't have me say such a thing. My previous reply was clear enough. -- Sylvain
