Documentation licenses

Documentation licenses

[Manoj Srivastava]

Hi,

        I note that the documentation for Gnus is available under the
 GFDL. Although none of the documents have any Invariant Sections
 (please correct me if I missed anything), several come with
 Front-Cover Texts, and with Back-Cover Texts.

        Unfortunately, people on the Debian legal mailing list have
 uncovered a number of other points of concern with the GFDL; 
 http://people.debian.org/~srivasta/Position_Statement.xhtml
 summarizes the problem areas.

        Would it be feasible to dual license the documentation under
 the GPL and the GFDL? The way that the Debian social contract has
 been modified recently, it would no longer be feasible to ship the
 documentation in the main section, along with make itself, which
 would be a pity.

        manoj
-- 
Bus error -- driver executed.
Manoj Srivastava   <srivasta@acm.org>  <http://www.datasync.com/%7Esrivasta/>
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05  CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C

Re: Documentation licenses

[Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen]

Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@acm.org> writes:

>         I note that the documentation for Gnus is available under the
>  GFDL.

When did that happen?  :-)

>         Would it be feasible to dual license the documentation under
>  the GPL and the GFDL?

Yes.  I don't support the GFDL at all -- I think the creeping
"invariant section"-itis that's infecting GNU software is rather, er,
creepy.

But I'm not the only contributor to the Gnus manual.  Does anybody
object to dual-licensing it?  Speak up, for or against. 

-- 
(domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
  larsi@gnus.org * Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen

Re: Documentation licenses

[Reiner Steib]

On Sun, May 16 2004, Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen wrote:

> Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@acm.org> writes:
>
>>         I note that the documentation for Gnus is available under the
>>  GFDL.
>
> When did that happen?  :-)

,----
| 2000-09-22  Dave Love  <fx@gnu.org>
| 
| 	* message.texi, gnus.texi, emacs-mime.texi: Convert to GFDL.
`----

>>         Would it be feasible to dual license the documentation under
>>  the GPL and the GFDL?
>
> Yes.  I don't support the GFDL at all -- I think the creeping
> "invariant section"-itis that's infecting GNU software is rather, er,
> creepy.
>
> But I'm not the only contributor to the Gnus manual.  Does anybody
> object to dual-licensing it?  Speak up, for or against. 

Maybe we can't do this for pgg.texi, sasl.texi and possibly other
manuals distributed with Gnus.

Bye, Reiner.
-- 
       ,,,
      (o o)
---ooO-(_)-Ooo--- PGP key available via WWW   http://rsteib.home.pages.de/

Re: Documentation licenses

[Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen]

Reiner Steib <4.uce.03.r.s@nurfuerspam.de> writes:

> Maybe we can't do this for pgg.texi, sasl.texi and possibly other
> manuals distributed with Gnus.

And the copyright is assigned to the FSF, so perhaps the easiest
thing to do would be for me to ask Richard if it'd be OK to
dual-licence the manuals? 

-- 
(domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
  larsi@gnus.org * Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen

Re: Documentation licenses

[Reiner Steib]

On Mon, May 17 2004, Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen wrote:

> Reiner Steib <4.uce.03.r.s@nurfuerspam.de> writes:
>
>> Maybe we can't do this for pgg.texi, sasl.texi and possibly other
>> manuals distributed with Gnus.
>
> And the copyright is assigned to the FSF, so perhaps the easiest
> thing to do would be for me to ask Richard if it'd be OK to
> dual-licence the manuals? 

Hm, the Emacs manual is also licensed under GFDL:

,----[ man/emacs.texi ]
| @quotation
| Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document
| under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.1 or
| any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with the
| Invariant Sections being ``The GNU Manifesto'', ``Distribution'' and
| ``GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE'', with the Front-Cover texts being ``A GNU
| Manual,'' and with the Back-Cover Texts as in (a) below.  A copy of the
| license is included in the section entitled ``GNU Free Documentation
| License.''
| [...]
`----

So it would probably make more sense if the debian-legal people find
some agreement with the Emacs maintainers.  (Will Debian also remove
GNU Emacs or move if to "non-free" otherwise?)

Bye, Reiner.
-- 
       ,,,
      (o o)
---ooO-(_)-Ooo--- PGP key available via WWW   http://rsteib.home.pages.de/

Re: Documentation licenses

[Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen]

Reiner Steib <4.uce.03.r.s@nurfuerspam.de> writes:

> So it would probably make more sense if the debian-legal people find
> some agreement with the Emacs maintainers.  (Will Debian also remove
> GNU Emacs or move if to "non-free" otherwise?)

I think it's likely that they'll move the documentation to
non-free...  :-)

-- 
(domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
  larsi@gnus.org * Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen

Re: Documentation licenses

[Manoj Srivastava]

On Tue, 18 May 2004 16:17:00 +0200, Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen <larsi@gnus.org> said: 

> Reiner Steib <4.uce.03.r.s@nurfuerspam.de> writes:
>> So it would probably make more sense if the debian-legal people
>> find some agreement with the Emacs maintainers.  (Will Debian also
>> remove GNU Emacs or move if to "non-free" otherwise?)

> I think it's likely that they'll move the documentation to
> non-free...  :-)

	Well, since the GFDL is really GPL incompatible, it is
 assumed that the documentation is a separate work merely aggregated
 with the GPL code; and thus can be separated.

	However, it has not yet been separated, since there seems to
 be hope that there can be some agreement.

	manoj
-- 
It seems a little silly now, but this country was founded as a protest
against taxation.
Manoj Srivastava   <srivasta@acm.org>  <http://www.datasync.com/%7Esrivasta/>
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05  CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C

Re: Documentation licenses

[Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen]

Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@acm.org> writes:

> 	However, it has not yet been separated, since there seems to
>  be hope that there can be some agreement.

Oh, good.  That would be the best solution, of course.

I've never quite understood the rationale for the invariant sections
in the GFDL.  It seems so...  unfree.  :-)

-- 
(domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
  larsi@gnus.org * Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen