Thomas Weber-8 wrote:
>
> On 06/04/08 13:09 -0700, dbateman wrote:
>> Yes it was intentional. I didn't want to add a build dependency on the
>> package on texinfo.. I suppose we might add the original documentation
>> and
>> only build it is the correct dependencies exist, though is this worth it?
>> Note the same situation is true for the fixed package.
>
> I don't know whether we actually have a choice. The documentation is
> (partly) built by copying text verbatim from GPL-licensed .m and .cc
> files.
>
> I'm no expert here, but I'd say that makes the document a derivative of
> the GPL-licensed files, meaning that the document must be licensed under
> GPL. And this means that we _must_ ship the source used for building it.
>
> Thomas
>
I wrote a lot of the code in the comms toolbox (the majority in terms of
line count), and wrote the documentation. I suppose except for a couple of
corner cases, I can give permission to distribute the pdf without the source
texinfo files.. In any case what you are saying means that no one can
distribute the documentation without the source code either, this seems
rather a strange situation to me.
D.
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/Documentation-for-communications-package-tp16525834p16530285.html
Sent from the octave-dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by the 2008 JavaOne(SM) Conference
Register now and save $200. Hurry, offer ends at 11:59 p.m.,
Monday, April 7! Use priority code J8TLD2.
http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;198757673;13503038;p?http://java.sun.com/javaone
_______________________________________________
Octave-dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/octave-dev
