Consensus on MT-, AS- and AC-Safety docs.

[Alexandre Oliva]

On Dec  3, 2013, "Carlos O'Donell" <carlos@redhat.com> wrote:

> On 12/03/2013 08:47 AM, Florian Weimer wrote:
>>> Do you have any specific license in mind?

>> I'd suggest to use the same license as for the C source code.

> We need to be careful here, and I recommend that Alex not embark
> on this process of conversion until we've had a chance to work
> through a design for this kind of machine parseable form.

ACK.  I still don't get why the GFDL itself wouldn't do, since the
information would be used as data, not as executable code.

Anyway, if we find we want the information to be usable under both LGPL
and GFDL, nothing stops us from contributing our annotations under a
dual licensing regime, so that it could be combined with code under LGPL
and with the manual under GFDL.  We, the contributors, can even do that
after the changes are incorporated under GFDL, per the terms of the
copyright assignment to the FSF.  So, there's no reason to rush to a
decision on this.


One point of concern, however, is whether any of the comments I added to
the manual, that reflect the call nesting in a number of functions,
could be regarded under copyright law as a derived work of the LGPLed
code; this would prevent its inclusion in the manual, even as comments.
Ugh.

-- 
Alexandre Oliva, freedom fighter    http://FSFLA.org/~lxoliva/
You must be the change you wish to see in the world. -- Gandhi
Be Free! -- http://FSFLA.org/   FSF Latin America board member
Free Software Evangelist      Red Hat Brazil Compiler Engineer