[Sussex] GFDL

[Simon Huggins]

Salut LUG!

On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 05:02:42PM +0100, Geoffrey J. Teale wrote:
> However, you have to question the value of the freedoms in the context
> of documentation as opposed to software.  In an ideal world we could
> have a license that doesn't cause the problems noted in your post, but
> that is the same world in which we could release everything under the
> BSD license and everyone would play fair.  The goal of the GFDL is to
> promote freedom without rendering documentation unusable in legal
> contexts and difficult to publish.  

Right and I can concede that some of this is good for dead-tree and that
for real books it's a lot better than just all rights reserved etc.

> In reality the FSF wants to have licenses that are legally strong and
> ensure important freedoms rather than all freedoms.  As I've stated
> the GPL also restricts some freedoms because those freedoms are
> damaging to freedom itself and to the greater good.  Debian doesn't
> have a problem with the GPL because it understands software better
> than it understands publishing.

Debian's problems stem from the FSF's use of the GFDL in *all*
documentation.  Electronic and not.

That's the bit you're ignoring very effectively in my posts ;)

> In the short term at least the FSF is unlikely to abandon the greater
> goals of the GFDL in favour of appeasing Debian's idealism.  

Oh sure, and Debian is going to move piles of documentation to non-free,
get upstream to relicense it or get volunteers to rewrite it because we
can no longer distribute it and our efforts to get the FSF to understand
the problems with the license have fallen on deaf ears.

> It's kind of interesting to see a discussion about the FSF being
> practical and Debian being idealists, nest pa?

"n'est-ce pas".  And sure that's a very neat rhetorical device you have
there.

> > Having the documentation under the GPL is fine.
> No it isn't.

You're ignoring again the fact that I'm referring to documentation as
part of software.  You've neatly snipped that bit where I said:
	The problem is that it's being foisted upon us for real
	documentation not just dead-tree stuff.  Documentation for
	things like emacs, autotools and so on uses this license.

Have you thought about becoming a spin doctor?

> The GPL makes requirements on documentation that cannot be fulfilled
> by a lot of textual content.  You have to make additional declarations
> about the nature of "source code" in order to use it that way.  

Well ok, http://cvsbook.red-bean.com/ was GPL'd (see also
http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0954161718/202-3227084-7002231)

http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/tg/stores/detail/-/books/0954161734/reviews/202-4320321-5467047 is GPL'd.

*shrug*

It can and has been done with real dead-tree by real publishers sold by
real book stores.

But seriously, I'd prefer to hear why electronic online documentation
can't be GPL'd.  That's much closer to software, the preferred form of
modification (its source code) is easy to get and process with free
tools so I don't see the problem.  Why do you need the GFDL here?

Simon.

-- 
UK based domain, email and web hosting ***/      "Engage panic Circuits. /*
http://www.blackcatnetworks.co.uk/     **/      Panic circuits engaged. /**
sales at blackcatnetworks.co.uk           */         AAARRRGh!" - Kryten. /***
Black Cat Networks                     /                              /****