[Sussex] Distros

[Paul Tansom]

On Mon, 2005-04-04 at 18:16 +0100, Geoffrey J. Teale wrote:
> Paul Tansom <paul at aptanet.com> writes:>
<snip>
> > That would seem to imply that the GFDL is not suitable for documenting
> > GPL source code, since you are unable to quote the source code within
> > the documentation in order to explain its workings. This is more a
> > license for documenting usage of applications. (With the obvious proviso
> > that if the original authors are happy with the dual license you could
> > use it).
> 
> Not at all.  There are compatibility issues but dual licensing deals
> with direct quotes, which are the only issue.  GFDL was specifically
> designed for documentation relating to GPL code.  The idea that the
> GFDL is somehow fundamentally unsuitable for the task comes purely
> from the Debian project, the FSF routinely produces GFDL documentation
> for GPL code. 

Well, no, from my reading of this thread, which is my only real
interaction with any information on the GFDL so far, I have come to the
same conclusion. If a GPL project creates documentation and wants this
documentation to be available to anyone who creates a derivative work
then the GFDL is not an option. If said hypothetical project wishes to
restrict the ability of any derivative work to quickly produce
documentation by forcing them to do it from scratch then the GFDL looks
good.

To my mind the GFDL is a good license for publishers to release books
related to free software projects with a view that they will be or may
be made available electronically. It is friendly enough to be accepted
by the community for such a purpose. For documentation directly
distributed with free software projects in electronic format primarily
(although with the possibility of printing if desired) then I would
suggest a different license is more suited. If there are situations
relating to commercial use of documentation (as you have indicated) that
require specific formats, protections, or etc. then I would suggest that
projects looking at supporting this produce specific documentation - or
alternatively there is a documentation project that produces this for
multiple free software projects.

Note that I am not defining the license as a bad one, just commenting on
my interpretation of where it is suitable for use and where not. Clearly
the FSF and Debian views on what constitutes free software differ
somewhat. The FSF are free to publish their documentation however the
like, as is anyone. Likewise Debian is free to consider that
documentation is no longer "free" according to their definition and will
therefore have to and move it to non-free (or other suitable action to
try to make it available). Clearly it is an issue where the two will
have to agree to differ, but given that it will cause an amount of work
and/or embarrassment to one or both parties means it is a contentious
issue!

Personally I see the GFDL as an olive branch to the commercial world
(primarily publishing) to allow them to work with us, not something that
is of direct use internally. Of course that is my current view and I
don't say that it will always be so - I reserve my right to change my
mind with new evidence or re-evaluating existing evidence :)

<snip>
-- 
Paul Tansom | Aptanet Ltd. | http://www.aptanet.com/