[Sussex] GFDL

[Simon Huggins]

Hiya,

Woo, I actually agree with most of what you've written here even if I'm
not entirely sure we're talking about the same thing.  So I'll apologise
for the spin doctor remark as that's clearly not where you were going.

On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 06:41:23PM +0100, Geoffrey J. Teale wrote:
> Simon Huggins <huggie at earth.li> writes:
> > Debian's problems stem from the FSF's use of the GFDL in *all*
> > documentation.  Electronic and not.
> You cannot distinguish.  If you publish the documentation
> electronically under freer terms then you have lost all the protection
> you put on the paper version!  There is nothing to stop me printing
> GPL'd documentation with any modifications I like so long as I make it
> available electronically (as source) this is a real issue for
> publishers, standards bodies, etc.

> This is the crux of the problem.

Right but what I'm trying to say is that the FSF is pushing it for
things like the Emacs and autotools documentation for users.  Which will
only really ever be useful online and will be freely published in
various ways online and doesn't need to be restricted for print
publication.

> > 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?
> Well, I've covered it several times over, but it comes down to this:
>    * Standard bodies and government agencies require legal protection
>      from misrepresentation of standard documentation.
>    * Publishers require that credits are maintained.
>    * Publishers require that where modification is made to what they
>      published that this modification is obvious and can in no way
>      result in legal action against them.

Right but manpages/info documents etc don't need to be printed nor are
they standards.

>    * The GPL requires that source code is made available and the
>    definition of "source code" for a book is a very loose legal term
>    that really doesn't benefit anyone.  The GFDL stipulates instead
>    that any modification that is reproduced above a certain level must
>    be provided with an electronically editable version.  This is a
>    serious concern, a GPL'd book on your desk causes problem.  If you
>    make margin notes in it and then pass it on to someone else you are
>    required to make you margin notes available in an editable form -
>    pretty stupid IMHO.

Only if you redistribute the book ;)

But yeah that's a legal edge case that noone can really take seriously.

> Now, outside of some specific areas the GPL is fine for most
> documentation, especially if it's not intended for paper publication,
> but the GFDL allows that documentation and the software it supports
> into places it couldn't go before.  Nobody at the FSF made up the GFDL
> to be a pain in the backside and while RMS can be pretty stroppy
> sometimes he is not trying to piss people off.  The FSF is trying to
> address genuine issues within the law, and the Debian project is not a
> major concern to the FSF.  That may again be a question of the FSF
> letting it's own ideals override reality but it is still the decision
> of each author which license they use (the FSF do not insist that the
> GFDL is used, apart from anything else the have no power with which to
> enforce it) so if Debian people have an issue they should take it up
> with each author.

Sure, but I worry about the acceptance of most upstream authors that
using an FSF license is fine and good and right and proper for
documentation - online docs like manpages, reference manuals etc - that
should be as widely distributable and modifiable as the software itself.

Simon.

-- 
- You have saved our lives.  We are eternally grateful.
- Yeah, yeah, yeah whatever.