Re: Gnus Manual License
On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 09:15:25 +0200, David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org> said:
> Hubert Chan <hubert@uhoreg.ca> writes:
>> On Thu, 12 Oct 2006 20:19:24 +0200, Daniel Brockman
>> <daniel@brockman.se> said:
>>
>>> David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org> writes:
>>>> Maybe you should ask that question to the publishers who refused
>>>> printing GNU manuals under simpler licenses. There is a _reason_
>>>> that the GFDL was created.
>>
>>> Why doesn't the FSF ask them that question?
>>
>> They probably did, which is probably what contributed to the writing
>> of the GFDL. I don't think that the FSF created the GFDL by guessing
>> at what the problems were.
>>
>> Mind you, if David is claiming that publishers have problems with the
>> GPL, then I think that it is up to him to back up those claims by
>> stating what the problems are.
> Cf. <URL:http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/why-gfdl.html>
Hmm... That's a rather short article, which doesn't point out any
problems with the GPL per se, and only really mentions cover texts as to
why publishers might care about the GFDL. Although cover texts may be
an advantage of the GFDL in the eyes of publishers, I don't really see
that the lack of it in the GPL causes problems, per se, for publishers.
It does say that RMS consulted with publishers, and others, but doesn't
go into any detail beyond that.
>From my reading, the article also seems geared towards convincing
publishers why they should release their own documents under the GFDL,
and not why they should care about printing someone else's document
that's released under the GFDL.
So I can't say that I find it to be a very convincing article with
respect to why the GPL is problematic for publishers.
> Again, if you think that you need more information, it is your task to
> research it
Rather, I think that if you claim that publishers had problems with the
GPL, then it is your task to be prepared to back that claim up.
> rather than revert to spreading FUD.
Please list the FUD that I have spread on this particular issue. I'm
not talking about my claim that requiring "A GNU Manual" is problematic,
which I guess you may consider to be FUD. I would like you to list the
so-called FUD that I have spread on the issue of the GPL presenting
problems to publishers.
On this issue, I have only:
- stated that I didn't think that the source code requirement of the GPL
really was that problematic (and given reasons for my opinion)
- asked you what other problems publishers have had
- agreed with you that there are reasons the GFDL was created
- stated that I didn't think that the source code requirement was the
only reason behind the creation of the GFDL (which is further
confirmed by the link that you gave, which mentions cover texts)
- stated that the FSF probably did consult with publishers when writing
the GFDL (which is confirmed by the link that you gave)
- [in this email] stated that I didn't think that the link you provided
shows any real problems with printing GPLed documents
I don't see how any of that constitutes FUD. So please either list the
FUD that I have spread on this issue, or stop saying that I am spreading
FUD.
--
Hubert Chan - email & Jabber: hubert@uhoreg.ca - http://www.uhoreg.ca/
PGP/GnuPG key: 1024D/124B61FA (Key available at wwwkeys.pgp.net)
Fingerprint: 96C5 012F 5F74 A5F7 1FF7 5291 AF29 C719 124B 61FA
Reply to: