Re: Gnus Manual License
On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 20:00:13 -0400, Michael Olson <mwolson@member.fsf.org> said:
> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#TOCWhyNotGPLForManuals
Thanks. This is more or less what I was looking for.
> In particular, "[T]he GFDL has clauses that help publishers of free
> manuals make a profit from selling copies--cover texts, for instance."
> It is both an issue of burden and one of ensuring that certain unfair
> (to the publisher) practices do not happen. Even if you might not
> think that having a written offer to provide source code is a burden,
> obviously some publishers do think so -- it could even be viewed as a
> burden on those who try to get a book published, if a publisher balks
> at providing source code on CD or via a written offer.
OK, I can accept this. Personally, I don't see the source code
requirement and lack of cover texts as a huge problem for publishers
that it would prevent me from using the GPL for my own manuals (or to
dual-license). I'm still not completely convinced that the FSF shouldn't
dual-license (e.g. dual-licensing would allow forks to copy information
between the documentation and the code in some semi-reasonable way --
although doing so would prevent the manual from being further
distributed under the GFDL, it would at least make copying possible).
But despite my disagreement, I guess that if publishers really do see
the source code requirement as a problem, and if the FSF wants to ensure
that they won't be burdened by it when someone makes a fork, then it is
the FSF's prerogative as copyright holder to do so.
--
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: