On Thu, Jun 13, 2002 at 10:32:00PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > People might incorporate DFCLed documentation into a C file. Think of > standards documents, or just damn good manuals and damn poorly commented > code.
Hmmm... if you incorporate the whole thing, you may have a problem, but if you're quoting bits, that's "Fair Use" - maybe "Fair Use" should be explicitly incorporated for the benefit of those living in countries that don't have such a concept, but... Besides, is it appropriate to use the GPL if you are incorporating the whole document into the code? What does the GFDL say about this? > But that's going to be a tough sell. :) And I'm no salesman. > > If the FSF don't believe it's appropriate for docs to be GPLed, then > > surely they don't regard it as essential that docs contained within a > > package of GPLed software be GPLed? > > Uh, I'll try to put this diplomatically, but I don't believe the FSF is > being entirely consistent on issues surrounding the FDL. Has anyone asked RMS what his position on incorporating (potentially large) bits of GFDL-licensed docs into GPLed programs is? That it will never be necessary? or that it should not be allowed? Or does the GFDL have an exception for this because the only purpose of the GFDL invariant sections as far as he is concerned is to push the GNU Manifesto, and if the docs are being incorporated into GPLed programs, then that fact is judged to be adequate pushing on its own? > If they're just distributed together in tarball -- if it's just "mere > aggregation", then probably not, no. However, see above. The document > might mingle with the source more than that. Free music, images, or > textures might be integrated tightly into a game, for instance. And might reasonably be separately licensed (like allowing distribution of a game engine, but not allowing distribution of the "full version" of the data to go with it, kind of like quake)... > Remember, the DFCL isn't just for manuals. No. OK, I think if you are really really convinced that you must have GPL- compatibility (which I am not convinced of myself, but hey...), then you *might* be able to twist a clause like clause 6 of the GPL to make sure that the endorsements come back into force if the docs are pulled back out from the program. But really, GPL-compatibility is probably a red herring - I think that GPL-compatibility may well detract from the overall usefulness of the license, as as others have pointed out, it is likely to render the doc essentially GPLed. Which a lot of authors will not go for. What happens now if you create a document from a program that is licensed under the GPL? Is the document forced to be GPLed? But the GPL applies only to Programs... someone needs to corner RMS on this (with a very well-defined list of very specific questions), since we're stuck with the GPL. I really think is that the GPL is in need of a revision anyway, as it appears to fail to consider lots of things that are happening today. Like the mess we are in with the OpenSSL crap - the OS exemption appears to give proprietary OS vendors a potential advantage over Debian. It also does not acknowledge the distinctions (or lack of) between a Program and any other information which may need to be distributed, nor does it consider how tightly such things may be integrated with Programs. Cheers, Nick -- Nick Phillips -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] You are confused; but this is your normal state. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
