Re: Problems in GNU FDL 1.2 Draft
On 20020213T133738-0800, Walter Landry wrote:
> In fact, it seems like the GPL is better worded
> for this sort of thing.
I would advice against anyone using the GPL for documentation.
For example, if I print and photocopy a GPL'd document and
give the copies to my students, I must also give them
machine-readable source. This is a major nuisance.
Also, it is not at all clear what is "object code" or
"executable code" when talking about documents.
> As a specific example of where the GPL is better worded, instead of
> arbitrarily listing certain formats as Transparent and others as
> Opaque, it simply refers to "the preferred form for modification."
It seems you have not read the FDL properly. It gives a general
definition and lists *examples*. I think this is better, as
it clarifies the definition.
> As another example, the GFDL requires me to include a copy of the
> license in the documentation. The GPL only requires a copy of the
> license along with the software.
If you are using the GPL to license documentation, then a reasonable
interpretation is that the documentation is "the software". Therefore,
you are obligated to give a copy of the GPL along with your document.
> I would be quite annoyed if my
> MagicPoint presentation (which I can edit with generic text editors)
> had to have a copy of the license inside it.
Why? You don't have to show the license to the audience.
> It also adds a number of clauses about copying in quantity,
> Endorsements, Title Page, and Cover Texts that unnecessarily confuse
> anyone who wants to apply the license to their work.
They are actually quite necessary, and there actually isn't enough of
them. (I have a concrete example where I need a cover text that
is treated like the "endorsements" section.)
--
Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho, LuK (BSc) * http://www.iki.fi/gaia/ * gaia@iki.fi
Reply to: