Re: GPL-compatible, copyleft documentation license
* Branden Robinson:
> On Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 12:33:22PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
>> * Branden Robinson:
>>
>> > In the copyright holder's understanding, re-imposition of the
>> > requirements of sections 2a and and 2c by those creating a derivative
>> > work is not allowed, since those restrictions never attached to this
>> > work; see section 6. This work can be combined with another work licensed
>> > under the GNU General Public License, version 2, but any section 2a and
>> > 2c restrictions on the resulting work would only attach only due to the
>> > copyright license on the work(s) with which this work is combined and for
>> > which those restrictions are in force.
>>
>> Isn't this at least a bit self-contradicting?
>
> I don't think so.
You are trying to create a GPL-compatible license that explicitly
forbids relicensing under the GPL. These two goals are in conflict.
> What problem(s) do you think there would be in licensing the work in
> question[1] under the straight GNU GPL?
> What applicability do you suggest clause 2c) has to things that
> can't "read commands interactively when run", because it's not a
> program?
None, and that's my point. The clause is completely without effect
because it only applies to programs which run interactively.
Obviously, documentation is not a program that runs interactively, so
documentation always fulfills this condition.
Furthermore, I don't understand the reason for preventing someone from
reintroducing the 2c) clause with respect to the work in a derivative
work which happens to be an interactive computer program. If you
remove this restriction, a lot of complexity goes away.
>> Your license doesn't give me permission to publicly perform the work,
>> or to broadcast it.
>
> True enough. Neither does the GNU GPL. Why is this not a problem for the
> GNU GPL?
The GPL was designed to be applied to computer programs. A license
explicitly labeled as "documentation license" should address this
issue.
>> It doesn't deal with moral rights at all (which
>> are quite important in some jurisdictions when it comes to
>> non-programs).
>
> True enough. Neither does the GNU GPL. Why is this not a problem for the
> GNU GPL?
The GPL was designed to be applied to computer programs. A license
explicitly labeled as "documentation license" should address this
issue.
>> It doesn't special-case distribution of printed copies, which means that
>> the GPL provisions apply. These provisions pretty much rule out
>> small-scaleprinting and redistribution because of the "valid for at least
>> three years" rule.
>
> True enough. Neither does the GNU GPL. Why is this not a problem for the
> GNU GPL?
The GPL was designed to be applied to computer programs. A license
explicitly labeled as "documentation license" should address this
issue.
>> However, the license does clarify what constitutes source code, but this
>> might also be a further restriction in the GPL sense, making the license
>> incompatible with the GPL.
>
> What's your reasoning? If someone transforms the document into an
> executable program, they have likely changed the preferred form of
> modification for the work. Nothing in the GNU GPL forbids them from doing
> so, and my clarification doesn't either.
Something might be labeled as source code even if it isn't. But you
are right, this is not a problem related to the clarification.
Reply to: