Robert Dewar wrote: >> I'm disappointed that a license "improvement" (changing GPL to GFDL on >> manuals) has made it impossible to do something that we, as developers, >> used to be able to do (when documentation was under the GPL we could >> move things back and forth between code and documentation at will), and >> which benefited users (by making it easier for us to generate better >> documentation). > > I agree that it is essential to be able to do this kind of movement > backwards and forwards.
Would you like to contact RMS about this? He doesn't seem to think that it's important, let alone essential. His suggestion is that we do this in the FSF repository (where we can explicitly make such license changes), but of course that denies that same freedom to third parties. RMS has proposed a script that regenerates GFDL'd documentation from GPL'd code. But, that is not sufficient because I can regenerate the GFDL'd manual after I change GPL'd code (my changes can be licensed as I see fit), but I cannot regenerate the GFDL'd manual after *you* change GPL'd code if you have not regenerated the GFDL'd manual. I believe that the right fix (short of simply abandoning the GFDL, which would be fine with me, but is presumably not going to pass muster with RMS) is a revision to the GPL that explicitly permits relicensing GPL'd content under the GFDL, by anyone. Movement in that direction should not be of concern to the FSF; the point of the GFDL was to prevent people removing the FSF's philosophical statements in its manuals, not to prevent GPL'd content from being used in manuals. -- Mark Mitchell CodeSourcery m...@codesourcery.com (650) 331-3385 x713
