Re: [rfa] License clarification for observer.texi

[Eli Zaretskii <eliz at gnu dot org>]

> Date: Mon, 8 May 2006 17:04:40 -0400
> From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>
> 
> The file is included directly into the manual, so must be covered by the
> GFDL.  But the header file generated from it by observer.sh (gdb/observer.h
> in the build tree) has a GPL notice added.  The GFDL and GPL are not
> compatible to this degree.  Even the FSF agrees about this - the
> FDL suggests releasing code fragments under the GPL in parallel to including
> them in the manual.
> 
> So, this patch marks observer.texi as distributable under both licenses.

Perhaps I'm missing something, but I don't see any need to do this.
observer.sh already puts a GPL blurb into observer.h, so why would we
need to add GPL to observer.texi?  There's no real code in the
portions extracted to observer.h to justify any level of bother, IMO.

What were the problems raised on debian-legal, and did they consult
the FSF?

> Does anyone disapprove of this change?  Or, feel sufficiently concerned by
> it that you would prefer I contact the FSF to confirm?  I don't feel that it
> is necessary, since I am dealing strictly with the FSF's preferred licenses
> for code and for manuals, and strictly for manual already used as code.

If the two licenses are incompatible, how do we know we can distribute
a file under both of them?