Re: Gnus Manual License
On Fri, 06 Oct 2006 08:35:19 +0200, David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org> said:
> Hubert Chan <hubert@uhoreg.ca> writes:
>> 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.
So if I take a GNU manual, and modify it such that it is no longer a GNU
manual, and still put on the cover that it is "A GNU Manual", then I'll
"have to bear the consequences". Nice.
>> 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.
The demand is made under copyright law. I don't see it as a waiver that
prevents me from being sued under other laws.
> 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.
Oh, come on. You must really be naive to think that. The courts have
made absolutely ridiculous rulings before. Unless the license gives me
an absolute guarantee that it is OK, I wouldn't take that chance. And
besides, why would anyone want to risk a lawsuit?
>>>> 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.
[...]
Whatever. So we have a list of a zillion texts that are each at most 5
words in length. (Assuming that 5 words is enough to correct the
previous falsehood.)
>> 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,
Once it is used to document something that is not a GNU project, or
modified for purposes outside of the GNU project, I would argue that it
is no longer a GNU manual.
> and the cover texts apply to mass-printed copies, so we are pretty
> certainly talking about a manual here.
Sure. If you say that reference cards, posters, etc. can also be
considered manuals.
>>> 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.
My understanding is that the combined license "A | B" is DFSG free as
long as A or B are DFSG free.
> 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.
Even in that case, it would only prevent them from creating printed
copies if they obtained the document only from Debian. The alternative
is that Debian does not distribute the documentation at all, in which
case the publisher could not have obtained the documentation from Debian
at all. In either case, the publisher would need to obtain the
documentation (or at least a license) by other means. So no freedom is
lost.
--
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: