Re: Gnus Manual License
On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 00:56:21 +0200, David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org> said:
> The idea is that software without source code is broken, and it
> remains the duty of the redistributor to provide unbroken software.
> Not the duty of some original author who might go broke if he had, for
> example, to provide the equivalent of source code disks for all of a
> popular GNU/Linux distribution.
Ugh. We're not talking about Debian refusing to provide source code.
If the documentation is GPLed, then Debian still has to provide the
source code.
> I don't consider the Debian developer in question a jerk because he
> has a more picky conscience. He has also contributed with helpful
> remarks and code and is in general very forthcoming. He also does
> serious license auditing in connection with TeXlive, and I don't see
> that he has a bone to pick with me or other AUCTeX developers.
I didn't mean to imply that you thought that the Debian developer in
question was a jerk. You did make it clear in a previous that you
respected his decision.
The purpose of my "Some developers are jerks, and have a bone to pick"
comment was to say that I would never dream of making claims on how
/every/ Debian developer would act, because every DD is different. Some
are jerks, and some aren't. Some will work as much with upstream as
they can, and some might try to screw over upstream if they had a
chance. However, I think that most are reasonable people.
>> All I can say is that the GFDL does more than just loosen the source
>> code requirements compared to the GPL (e.g. it introduces cover
>> texts). And so from what I can tell, the source code requirement is
>> probably not the only reason for the creation of the GFDL.
> If it were, dual licensing with GPL would be a no-brainer since then
> the GPL would be an overall more restrictive option and not
> interesting.
> I don't see who except you would have declared this straw man fit for
> beating.
First you ask me to say more about "what [I] think would be the whole
story," and then when I try to clarify my position, as much of it as I
believe is relevant to this discussion, you accuse me of beating a straw
man? Please.
The source code requirement is the only thing that you brought up as to
why the GPL would prevent someone from printing a manual. The article
you pointed to in another email mentioned cover texts. I said that I
didn't find either of those to be terribly compelling arguments against
the GPL. I am trying to understand why you think that the GPL places
such a terrible burden on printers. If you don't have any more reasons,
just say so. If you do, then tell me what they are. It isn't very
productive for you to dance around it like this.
--
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: