Dave Korn wrote: >>> Just to be clear, I don't believe that regenerating the docs itself would >>> be a breach since NOTHING you do internally can be a GPL or GFDL breach). >>> What would be a breach would be *distributing* those regenerated docs.
>> Indeed; I was too casual in my description. Dave can regenerate the >> docs, and even pass them around his company, but he can't distribute them. > Well, I can't say I like this idea. The whole scheme seems laden with > unforeseen potential booby-traps. I agree. However, to convince RMS that this isn't sufficient, I need to explain this is in a way that shows that this "solution" is a problem *for the FSF*. (The fact that the FSF has special superpowers that other parties don't isn't something the FSF considers a problem; the FSF wants people to assign code to them in part precisely so that it can change the licenses at will. I think RMS does recognize that this issue for distributors is a problem in this situation, though. He also doesn't feel that he can get a license exception very quickly, though, if at all.) -- Mark Mitchell CodeSourcery m...@codesourcery.com (650) 331-3385 x713
