On Sun, 19 Dec 2004, Paul Eggert wrote: > > One approach that Autoconf could take is to provide a special > > exception so that any sample code copied from the documentation is > > licensed under the GPL or LGPL rather than GFDL. > > Thanks for this suggestion. At the end of this message is a proposed > patch along those lines. Would this patch be enough to satisfy the > Debian folks? I will submit it to debian-legal when you arrive at the final form of the patch, along with the following question: "Would this patch solve the current GPL/GFDL incompatibility issues on autoconf? This is an orthogonal question to how the GFDL relates to the DFSG, so please stay on the topic at hand: Does it solve the GPL/GFDL incompatibility in the special case of autoconf, or not? If not, what else needs to be done to solve the GPL/GFDL compatibility issue for autoconf?" Adding GFDL documents back to Debian depends on another issue, though, and that one will be decided only after Debian "Sarge" is released. > Changing the GFDL would take more work. For now, how about if we > start with Autoconf? If the result seems to work well in practice, > then we can take it to the GFDL level. That would be very very good news. Please contact "Benjamin Mako Hill" <mako@xxxxxxxxxx>, he can position you on how the Debian and the FSF talks about the issue are going, and what to expect from both sides. -- "One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond where the shadows lie." -- The Silicon Valley Tarot Henrique Holschuh _______________________________________________ Autoconf mailing list Autoconf@xxxxxxx http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf
