Re: Gnus Manual License
Hubert Chan <hubert@uhoreg.ca> writes:
> On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 09:16:59 +0200, David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org> said:
>
>> Hubert Chan <hubert@uhoreg.ca> writes:
>>> On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 23:09:15 +0200, David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org> said:
>>>
>>>> Jérôme Marant <jerome@marant.org> writes:
>>>>> I guess that not being able to rename or remove "A GNU Manual"
>>>>> makes impossible to make a derivative manual.
>>>
>>>> Not at all. It just places a requirement on the form a derivative
>>>> manual might take in the print.
>>>
>>> I cannot make a derivative manual that states on the cover that it is
>>> "A GNU Manual" when it is, in fact, NOT a GNU manual.
>
>> Since when? The line is not "I am a GNU Manual, and whoever says
>> differently will get sued".
>
> Huh? Are you saying that it's OK to publish some random manual, and
> state on the cover that it is "A GNU Manual", when it is, in fact,
> NOT a GNU manual? Is the FSF OK with this?
If they put on the cover text, they have to bear the consequences.
Certainly.
> Independently of copyright law, there are generally laws against
> using someone else's name to "endorse" your own product without
> their permission.
So what? You do not even have their permission, you have their
_demand_ to put this cover text on. It would be utter license abuse
that would lose them a case before every court if they twisted this
into some sort of "you are not allowed to publish at all" game.
>>> The manual would make claims that are absolutely false, and which the
>>> license prevents anyone from removing.
>
>> You can easily say
>
>> A GNU Manual
>> Converted to a Microsoft share.
>
> Yay. So we can have:
>
> A GNU Manual
> Except that now it's been adapted into the ZILE manual, and only chapter
> 28 has any relation to any GNU manual.
> Actually, this is now a JOVE manual.
> Published by IBM.
> Err... make that Sun.
> Well, this isn't actually technically a manual any more, per se. It's
> more of a reference card now.
> ... ad infinitum ...
No, we can't have that.
The ``Cover Texts'' are certain short passages of text that are
listed, as Front-Cover Texts or Back-Cover Texts, in the notice
that says that the Document is released under this License. A
Front-Cover Text may be at most 5 words, and a Back-Cover Text may
be at most 25 words.
[...]
You may add a passage of up to five words as a Front-Cover Text,
and a passage of up to 25 words as a Back-Cover Text, to the end
of the list of Cover Texts in the Modified Version. Only one
passage of Front-Cover Text and one of Back-Cover Text may be
added by (or through arrangements made by) any one entity. If the
Document already includes a cover text for the same cover,
previously added by you or by arrangement made by the same entity
you are acting on behalf of, you may not add another; but you may
replace the old one, on explicit permission from the previous
publisher that added the old one.
> At least with the BSD advertising clause, you were never forced to
> state something that was factually incorrect, requiring you to add
> useless text in order to retract the falsehood.
The thing does not become non-GNU by modification, and the cover texts
apply to mass-printed copies, so we are pretty certainly talking about
a manual here.
>> if you deem it necessary. And this requirement becomes active only
>> on mass printed copies, anyway.
>
> Like I've said before: dual license GPL/GFDL. If publishers
> can't/don't want to comply with the GPL, then they can use the GFDL.
> And people who don't care about printed copies can use the GPL.
The problem is that they can subsequently restrict redistribution to
just a single license. And that means that the protection is the
minimum of that of GPL and GFDL, not a combination. For example,
GFDL-hostile entities like Debian will be free to distribute the
material GPL-only, meaning that it will become impossible to
reasonably create printed copies.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
Reply to: