Re: Re: Advices on choosing a documentation license for an upstreamproject
> Well, given you talk about being a pure GPL project, why not put your
> documentation under the GPL as well? Even if you were writing in
> plain text or in a WYSIWYG program, it's a reasonable choice. But
> given you're writing in docbook, with a very clear
> source-compiled-to-object mapping, the GPL is a great choice for a
> free documentation license.
I certainly agree that there are major problems with the GFDL for
documentation. But I am puzzled as to why people think that using the
GPL for documentation is better. It has a drawback that doesn't seem
to be widely appreciated: can you print out the document and give it
to someone, or produce a PDF and give it to someone? Yes, but there
are requirements that it seems some people are ignoring.
The GPL requires that anyone who receives the work also either receives
the source for the work (the preferred form for making changes), or an
offer, good for three years, to provide the source. This could be a
major hassle for publishers. Of course, program documentation could
come with a CD-ROM with source code for both the program and the
document. But what if you print it out for a friend? You have to give
him either the source or the written offer. If he declines to take the
source, he can't pass it on (unless he wants to sign up for the
three-year offer or somehow obtain the source).
You might want to add an exception to the GPL for your documentation,
saying that a distributor is exempt from including source if they
leave in a notice saying where on the web the latest source can be
found, otherwise they must fully comply. The license would still be
GPL-compatible.
Reply to: