Re: What is the license of generated files?

[Stefan Sauer <ensonic hora-obscura de>]

+legal-list, any suggestions?

Stefan

On 02/04/2013 11:03 PM, Jeff Johnston wrote:
> On 12/14/2012 01:11 PM, David Nečas wrote:
> > On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 12:54:13PM -0500, Jeff Johnston wrote:
> > > I personally like the exception method ala Autotools but would be
> > > fine with the GFDL 1.3 license which has already been cleared with
> > > Eclipse.org.
> >
> > I hope that whatever license is chosen it is meant to be be dual with
> > GNU GPL under which they are implicitly licensed now.  GNU FDL is a
> > peculiar license, incompatible with GNU GPL(!) and in some variants
> > verging on non-free, whether cleared by eclipse.org or not.  If the
> > files were GNU FDL license I am afraid many would nave to look for
> > replacements under a different license.
> >
> > > Is there any way of contacting the original contributor of the .png
> > > files to have them licensed?  If not, I would suggest replacing
> > > them. It should be simple to find such icons with an appropriate
> > > license.
> >
> > As someone who likes the current images and their current license I
> > wonder what is the best way to keep them used when the documentation of
> > my projects is compiled.
> >
> > Yeti
>
> Any progress on this?  This is potentially a serious issue.  Should I
> open a bug against gtk docs?
>
> GPL would be unacceptable from our stand-point for documentation.  I
> think the best solution would be that the owner of the documentation
> gets to decide how to license the generated files (i.e. they purposely
> have no license information).
>
> The icons still need to be dealt with.
>
> -- Jeff
>
> _______________________________________________
> gtk-doc-list mailing list
> gtk-doc-list gnome org
> https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-doc-list