[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Copyright question
From: |
David Kastrup |
Subject: |
Re: Copyright question |
Date: |
Sat, 14 Jun 2008 23:36:09 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.0.60 (gnu/linux) |
Alan Mackenzie <address@hidden> writes:
> Nearly everybody agrees there are problems with the current GFDL.
This list is not for discussing the GFDL. Like other projects, it is
inherently a slowly moving target that gets improved over time.
Whether one likes the GFDL or not or whether Debian likes it or not:
that is not really a topic here. My beef is not with the GFDL per se,
but rather that the _GPL_ demands to distribute a work as a whole under
the GPL. And the increasing integration of the GFDL manuals (which is a
convenient and useful thing) makes the definition of "whole work"
increasingly arbitrary in a manner where we
a) don't want to set a precedent for people integrating incompatibly
licensed material with GPL software based on a weird "whole work"
interpretation of Emacs
b) don't want to turn the integration of documentation into a privileged
operation not compatible with the "public" in "General Public License".
The current distribution of Emacs with its incompatible GFDL/GPL
combination strains the credulity of the GPL. And the more we integrate
info manuals into the Emacs work and reference flow, the worse this
gets. I certainly hope that this will get sorted out in the long run.
A dual licensing of the technical manuals would certainly help.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum