Re: Should our documentation be free? (Was Re: Inconsistencies in
Joe Wreschnig said:
> On Tue, 2003-08-05 at 05:46, Joe Moore wrote:
>> Joe Wreschnig said:
>> > On Mon, 2003-08-04 at 14:37, Joe Moore wrote:
>> >> How is that harder with the FDL "History" section than with the
>> >> "clearly marked" BSD code, or the GPL-required changelog?
>> >
>> > The document trail in "History" may not exist anymore (or may be
>> > inadaquate); you can't just say "Oh, this Invariant Section didn't
>> > exist 2 years ago; I'll take it out and pretend I had that version."
>> > You need to actually have a license for that version.
>>
>> In other words, it is not at all harder with documents under the GFDL,
>> than it is with source under BSD, or the [L]GPL.
>
> You can extract the BSD-licensed code from the proprietary code, and
> use only it. There's no requirement in the BSD-licensed code that you
> must distribute proprietary code that it was linked to at one point.
And that is exactly the same as what is required by the GFDL.
If you know that paragraph X was in the FooWare manual before EvilCo added
its invariant section, then you can distribute paragraph X without EvilCo's
invariant section. (assuming you fulfill the rest of the requirements of
the GFDL invoked by the FooWare manual from before EvilCo's modification)
The easiest way to be sure that this is the case is to find a copy of the
FooWare manual from before EvilCo's contribution. Or you can try to
interpret EvilCo's "History" section.
If you don't know which paragraphs were added or modified by EvilCo, then
you are taking a risk that you are violating EvilCo's copyright.
Similarly, with BSD'd source:
If you know that function X was in the FooWare product before EvilCo added
its proprietary GUI, then you can distribute function X without EvilCo's
permission. (assuming you fulfull the rest of the requirements of the BSD
license, i.e. preserve copyright notices) The easiest way to be sure that
this is the case is to find a copy of the FooWare product without EvilCo's
proprietary GUI. Or you can review the changelog and back out all changes
from EvilCo.[0]
If you don't know which functions were added or modified by EvilCo, then you
are taking a risk that you are violating EvilCo's copyright.
>
> I don't know why you mention the GPL at all. You cannot combine code
> under the GPL with proprietary software, nor can you have any kind of
> invariant section in GPLd code.
[0] Oh, wait, the BSD license doesn't require a changelog, that must be why
I brought the [L]GPL into the picture... It's a convenient license that
happens to require a changelog. And the LGPL does allow combination with
proprietary software.
>
>> The GFDL is no more "viral" in this respect than any other source
>> license
> I hope this means "free software license" ^^^^^^
>> that allows non-Free derived work.
>
> Yes, it is. No other free license requires you keep the previously free
> source forever proprietary-linked, once it has become such.
The GFDL does not require "you keep the previously free source forever
proprietary-linked, once it has become such." You can continue to develop
and maintain a free version from the last non-proprietary version.
The freedom to fork is one of the key freedoms of Free Software. I can
think of several cases where a Free Software product was continued (from an
earlier version) when a later version was taken proprietary.
If you can't "retroactively" fork from a previous (assumed free) version,
then the license in question fails the "Tentacles of Evil" test. The GFDL
(as I understand the license and the test) passes the "Tentacles of Evil"
test.
--Joe
Reply to: