-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Hi, ams@gnu.org schrieb am 10.02.06 12:28:55:
There is no doubt that free software needs free documentation, even FSF says this. If so, why does FSF allow restrictions to modifications of documentation (using FDL) that does not allow for software?
Because such restrictions make sense, you don't need the right to modify my thoughts about why I wrote the book, or to whom I dedicated the book.
You're talking about books but the argument was about, say, the the gcc manual.
There is people that thinks software is the conjuction of programs and their documentation (and other thing, like images, etc.). For example, Debian project seems to think this way.
Debian consideres _everything_ software, which is simply bogus. Some images might make sense to have as verbatim only, same applies for many texts about philosophy, or even music recordings. This does not apply to functional works, like software, where modification is an essential right.
And documentation of software belongs to the software itself as much as the source code.
You don't need the right to modify my poem about dragons, or infact, this text.
Nobody said so.
Why limit modification of documentation of a free program, if we do not want that limit for the program itself and if the documentation is necessary?
You aren't limited anywhere when you modify free documentation of a free program. This is like saying that you are limited by the GPL to create non-free works, which is simply nonsense.
I could interpret your message as saying that GFDL was not free, otherwise, its sense is unclear to me.
The main question I see about this was: Why are manuals/docs of GNU GPLed programs not under GNU GPL license, a license that is bullet-proof, easily understood (in comparison to GFDL, at least) and also practically useful?
Best wishes Michael
Because such restrictions make sense, you don't need the right to modify my thoughts about why I wrote the book, or to whom I dedicated the book.
You're talking about books but the argument was about, say, the the gcc manual.
A manual is a type of a book. It makes sense for manuals as well.
And documentation of software belongs to the software itself as much as the source code.
Maybe, maybe not. Depends on the case. But the GFDL does not cause any problems with mixing code and documentation in the same package.
You aren't limited anywhere when you modify free documentation of a free program. This is like saying that you are limited by the GPL to create non-free works, which is simply nonsense.
I could interpret your message as saying that GFDL was not free, otherwise, its sense is unclear to me.
I fail to see how you could interpret my message as that.
The main question I see about this was: Why are manuals/docs of GNU GPLed programs not under GNU GPL license, a license that is bullet-proof, easily understood (in comparison to GFDL, at least) and also practically useful?
Because it doesn't make sense to license manuals/documentation under the GPL. Software and manuals are different type of works. You don't use the GPL as the license for music or pictures.
I suggest that you read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-doc.html
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Alfred M. Szmidt schrieb:
Because it doesn't make sense to license manuals/documentation under the GPL. Software and manuals are different type of works. You don't use the GPL as the license for music or pictures.
I read something different lately [1]: LinuxP2P: Can the GPL be applied to artwork? For example, most of the people who submit wallpapers to KDE-Look.org submit them under the GPL, would the GPL's terms still apply, considering it isn't software.
RMS: There must be some basic misunderstanding here. If a work is released under the GPL, then the GPL's terms apply to it. How could it possibly be otherwise?
I suggest that you read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-doc.html
I'll do (again).
Best wishes Michael
[1] http://www.linuxp2p.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=10771
- -- Nobody can save your freedom but YOU - become a fellow of the FSF Europe! http://www.fsfe.org/en
LinuxP2P: Can the GPL be applied to artwork? For example, most of the people who submit wallpapers to KDE-Look.org submit them under the GPL, would the GPL's terms still apply, considering it isn't software.
RMS: There must be some basic misunderstanding here. If a work is released under the GPL, then the GPL's terms apply to it. How could it possibly be otherwise?
I didn't claim that it couldn't be applied; I claimed that it doesn't make much sense to apply to art work, or music. You have to define what the source code for music and art work is. Which isn't as cut and dry as for software.
On 10-Feb-2006, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
You're talking about books but the argument was about, say, the the gcc manual.
A manual is a type of a book. It makes sense for manuals as well.
Free manuals must not be restricted to only ever be distributed as books. The recipient should have the freedom to take pieces of the manual and distribute it in other forms, such as a reference card or sticker.
the GFDL does not cause any problems with mixing code and documentation in the same package.
It causes direct problems with taking pieces of the FDL manual and putting it into GPL code, or vice versa. The result is not redistributable under either license.
Because it doesn't make sense to license manuals/documentation under the GPL. Software and manuals are different type of works.
It's prefectly feasible to take code and put it into a manual, or to take text from a manual and put it into code. I believe it is a freedom demanded by the four basic freedoms. Licensing the manual incompatibly with the license of the code prevents this.
On 11-Feb-2006, Ben Finney wrote:
It's prefectly feasible to take code and put it into a manual, or to take text from a manual and put it into code. I believe it is a freedom demanded by the four basic freedoms. Licensing the manual incompatibly with the license of the code prevents this.
Actually, this isn't a problem caused by the *incompatibility* of the FDL against the GPL; it's a problem caused by the restrictions on redistribution in the FDL, regardless of the license of the code.
A manual is a type of a book. It makes sense for manuals as well.
Free manuals must not be restricted to only ever be distributed as books. The recipient should have the freedom to take pieces of the manual and distribute it in other forms, such as a reference card or sticker.
Should's and should not's. I think a `fair use' clause like this in the GFDL would be a good idea where you are not required to include the invariant sections, etc. But where should one draw the line? And where does copyright law draw the line? Berne is very vauge, and leaves it to each country to decide.
the GFDL does not cause any problems with mixing code and documentation in the same package.
It causes direct problems with taking pieces of the FDL manual and putting it into GPL code, or vice versa. The result is not redistributable under either license.
If you are the copyright holder, or have a specific entity that is the copyright holder, then this is no problem. It is no different than having a GPL incompatible license which happens to be a free software license.
[Please don't Cc me on messages to the list; your unsolicited message to me arrives first, and the list message gets deleted as a duplicate.]
On 11-Feb-2006, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
Free manuals must not be restricted to only ever be distributed as books. The recipient should have the freedom to take pieces of the manual and distribute it in other forms, such as a reference card or sticker.
Should's and should not's.
As specified by the four basic freedoms of the FSF.
I think a `fair use' clause like this in the GFDL would be a good idea where you are not required to include the invariant sections, etc.
Why is an extra clause necessary? The existing restrictive FDL clauses are the cause of the conflict with the for FSF freedoms.
But where should one draw the line?
By comparing freedoms of a licensed work against the freedoms of the FSF.
[The FDL] causes direct problems with taking pieces of the FDL manual and putting it into GPL code, or vice versa. The result is not redistributable under either license.
If you are the copyright holder, or have a specific entity that is the copyright holder, then this is no problem.
This is true only in the case where all copyright holders in both works can agree to the change of license. If they all agree with such a combination, why not choose licenses that allow this to begin with?
It does not cover cases where the copyright holders cannot all be contacted to alter the license, nor where most agree but some do not. In either case, the result is not redistributable under either license. Again, if the original licensors chose licenses that granted the same freedoms, there would be no need to contact them to exercise those freedoms.
It is no different than having a GPL incompatible license which happens to be a free software license.
True, which is why proliferation of licenses is to be strongly discouraged.
[Please don't Cc me on messages to the list; your unsolicited message to me arrives first, and the list message gets deleted as a duplicate.]
Group reply is the normal form to reply to mailing lists. If you'd like to have the list message to get the higher priority, then you just need to change the order of how you sort your messages.
Should's and should not's.
As specified by the four basic freedoms of the FSF.
The four basic freedoms are for software.
I think a `fair use' clause like this in the GFDL would be a good idea where you are not required to include the invariant sections, etc.
Why is an extra clause necessary? The existing restrictive FDL clauses are the cause of the conflict with the for FSF freedoms.
They don't cause any conflicts, the four freedoms of software are for software; not other works. Sometimes they make sense for other works, but sometimes they do not.
It is no different than having a GPL incompatible license which happens to be a free software license.
True, which is why proliferation of licenses is to be strongly discouraged.
For a specific branch (like software), I agree whole heartly. But for all works, no, since different works need different rights. You still don't need to be able to modify this message so that it says something I didn't write or mean.