Re: Clarifying non-free parts of the GNU FDL
Joe Buck <Joe.Buck@synopsys.COM> writes:
> I'm pleased to see that documentation writers are trying to figure
> out a way to clean up some issues with the GNU FDL. It seems,
> though, that some of the commenters are getting sidetracked by side
> issues.
>
> Side issue #1: even a GFDL with exceptions is still going to be GPL
> incompatible. True, but that's also the case for several other
> licenses that are considered DFSG-free, so the point isn't relevant
> for this discussion. We can recommend dual licensing, but don't need
> to require it.
It's particularly important for documentation of GPL'd works, where
being able to move code and informative text back and forth -- for
online help, for example -- is useful but made impossible by the
licensing.
> Side issue #3: claims that we should tell people to use the GPL for
> documentation. That's a bad idea, as if I sell my GPL-covered printed
> book to a friend, and that book was produced from, say, DocBook SGML, I
> have to either give the friend the SGML source code, or else give him a
> written offer, good for three years, to give him the source code
> later.
Yes, and if you used GPL'd code -- for a bunch of examples in the text, perhaps
-- then you have to do that anyway. On the other hand, if you're
printing books then you can just put an offer in the back, nice and
easy -- and there'll be few versions, given current printing
technology. Any future technology which makes more versions feasible
also makes source distribution easier, too.
And if you have to give out source, just give the source you had -- CD
in the back, for example.
-Brian
--
Brian Sniffen bts@alum.mit.edu
Reply to: