Re: GPL as documentation license
I read the "Linux Documentation Project Copying License" at
<http://sunsite.unc.edu/linux/LDP-COPYRIGHT.html>
If this the license you mean? Is there a URL for this license that will be
permanent for the foreseeable future? My signature block on email and
newsgroup postings, as well as the copyright block on my articles, contains
the URL of my chosen license. If I were to switch to the LDP license, it
would be important that I refer to a permanent URL. I need a URL because I
am simply not going to include a verbatim copy of any license with
everything I publish.
I am sure you understand why I must explicitly put all my works under the
GPL. If I neglect it on any work, then it is automatically covered by the
terms and conditions of Title 17 which, IMHO, takes away too much freedom.
Here are some reasons why I don't think I can use the LDP license.
1. It seems to be clearly tied to the LDP. If I use the LDP license to
publish my cooking recipes that would imply that my work is part of the LDP
which would clearly be untrue. That could probably be remedied by
obtaining blanket "permission" from the LDP coordinator for the LDP scope
to expand to all of U.S. Code, Title 17.
2. The LDP license is strongly affiliated with the Linux Installation and
Getting Started manual. That isn't a fatal problem but could be slightly
confusing.
3. The issues covered in the license are pretty strongly tied to the issues
surrounding documentation manuals rather than things like jpeg files, sound
files, mpeg files, multi-media sequencing scripts, etc. That's not fatal
but makes the general applicability of the LDP license somewhat more
difficult than the GPL to stretch.
4. The definition of "small portions" is ambiguous. It seems to be bigger
than would be permitted under "fair use" doctrine but it would be hard to
know where to draw the line. The clause may be superfluous and might even
be risky because Section 107, "Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use"
<http://lcweb.loc.gov/copyright/title17/1-107.html> and Section 108 through
112 already seem to provide those permissions, and more, which no license
can rescind.
5. It gets sticky on derivative works. Assuming I were ever to write
anything someone might want to derive from, I certainly don't want to have
to provide permission, in writing. I want people to have automatic
derivation permission.
6. The GPL coverage of the transformation from the "source" to the "binary"
form is useful in certain situations.
7. The LDP license does not cover, at all, one of my pet issues, that
compilation works that include parts of my work, must be under the same
license I use. Under Title 17 of the
United States Code, Section 103. "Subject matter of copyright: Compilations
and derivative works" <http://lcweb.loc.gov/copyright/title17/1-103.html>
Item 7. is pretty serious for me. Let's say I produce a multi-media
tutorial and put it under the GPL. You are free to re-combine it, change
it, add or remove any parts you want, provided you put your work under the
GPL and, thereby, grant me the same freedoms over your new work. I don't
want to get drawn into an arduous trail of permission granting. I simply
want you to do whatever you want as long as you can live with my chosen
license.
These issues, all of which are solvable in the LDP license could make it
meet my needs. I do like the fact that it is more "plain English". I
would probably convert to it if it was officially recognized as the GNU
project's preferred copyleft license for everything except computer
programs. I have explained all this to RMS and I am patiently awaiting his
official copyleft statement. Then I will undoubtedly move in whatever
direction he documents as "official". I must remain firm because I want to
see copyleft codified into statute and I cannot afford the confusion of
placing my foundation anywhere outside RMS's official statement of copyleft
at <http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/copyleft.html>.
The GPL, while it is software centric, remains, in my opinion, the one
copyleft license most generally applicable to the breadth of Title 17.
Let me give you one example to see if you can see where I am coming from.
Let's assume I create a "source" in the form of digital architectural
drawings. When that digital form is rendered to paper it is still covered
by the GPL. If you build a "binary" building from those plans, it is
covered by the GPL. If someone takes a photograph of that building, it is
covered by the GPL. If someone scans that photograph and puts the image on
the Web, it is covered by the GPL. Nothing in the GPL permits a
transformation out of copyleft back to non-free copyright.
If I want you to permit you to take intact parts of my work, like a jpeg
file, for example, and be able to use it on your non-GPL web page, I can
always call my work a "library" and put the parts under the LGPL, if I am
willing to streeetch a few terms and conditions.
I contend that the GPL already extends its reach across the full spectrum
of object transformations and rendering, between and among the digital and
physical forms. I have pushed this notion to sometimes absurd extremes and
have yet to find the GPL lacking. If you think I am being silly then I
would ask you to ponder how far the intellectual property lawyers are
prepared to push the Title 17 of the U.S. Code and to what extremes they
will/are going. Wherever copyright can go, GPL copyleft can follow. I will
be interested to see if any lawyer can find a transformation covered by
copyright that is not covered by GPL copyleft.
My only real "complaint" about the GPL is that I want a way to permit you
to copy my work "without attribution". That means you can copy it straight
away into anything and use it without listing me in the credits or
anything. The only requirement I want is that you publish under the GPL.
I don't even need "domain closure" in the sense of requiring you to publish
my stuff "without attribution". You can own whatever credit you want, it
does not matter to me. Whether you agree or disagree, I hope I have made
this clear.
Thanks for your continuing patience and your help with this issue of
licensing.
At 11:09 AM 9/3/98 -0500, Havoc Pennington <rhpennin@midway.uchicago.edu>
wrote:
>
>On Thu, 3 Sep 1998, Lyno Sullivan wrote:
>>
>> Basically, for reasons I will get to in a minute, I can only consider a
>> license that embodies the spirit of copyleft as documented at
>> <http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/copyleft.html>. If RMS believes a
>> documentation license embodies the spirit of copyleft, then I would hope
>> he would be willing to list it on that page and then I will consider it
>> for my own use. If the Debian documentation license truly embodies
>> copyleft, I will willingly join a crusade to persuade RMS to list it on
>> his copyleft page.
>>
>
>Probably easy - RMS told me to use the license I'm using instead of the
>GPL, and he uses it on all FSF documentation. I'm also using it because
>it's the LDP User's Guide license and so I have to, since I'm using text
>from that guide.
>
>It is also a copyleft, if you read it. It's just much simpler since it
>doesn't have to discuss source code, dynamic linking, and so on.
>
>Anyway since RMS probably wrote the thing I doubt you'll have a hard time
>convincing him to use it.
>
>Havoc
>
--
Copyright (c) 1998 Lyno Sullivan; this digital object is free and
may be copied, modified and distributed under the GNU General
Public License (GPL) at http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html and
it comes with absolutely NO WARRANTY; mailto:lynosull@maroon.tc.umn.edu
Reply to: