GFDL

GFDL

[Carsten Dominik]

Hi,

I am wondering, are we required to include the full text of the GFDL in the manual?  I find it a big waste of space and feed that a link should do.  But I have not been able to find the rules that say what needs to be included in a document distributed under GFDL?

Thanks

- Carsten

Re: GFDL

[Achim Gratz]

Carsten Dominik writes:
> I am wondering, are we required to include the full text of the GFDL
> in the manual?  I find it a big waste of space and feed that a link
> should do.  But I have not been able to find the rules that say what
> needs to be included in a document distributed under GFDL?

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/fdl-howto
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/fdl-1.3.html

"To use this License in a document you have written, include a copy of
the License in the document and put the following copyright and license
notices just after the title page:[…]"

I read this: If there's just one document, it must contain the license
in full, if there are several that reference each other, it is enough to
include it in the top-level document.


Regards,
Achim.
-- 
+<[Q+ Matrix-12 WAVE#46+305 Neuron microQkb Andromeda XTk Blofeld]>+

Factory and User Sound Singles for Waldorf Blofeld:
http://Synth.Stromeko.net/Downloads.html#WaldorfSounds

Re: GFDL

[Carsten Dominik]

On 9.3.2013, at 16:02, Achim Gratz <Stromeko@nexgo.de> wrote:

> Carsten Dominik writes:
>> I am wondering, are we required to include the full text of the GFDL
>> in the manual?  I find it a big waste of space and feed that a link
>> should do.  But I have not been able to find the rules that say what
>> needs to be included in a document distributed under GFDL?
> 
> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/fdl-howto
> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/fdl-1.3.html
> 
> "To use this License in a document you have written, include a copy of
> the License in the document and put the following copyright and license
> notices just after the title page:[…]"
> 
> I read this: If there's just one document, it must contain the license
> in full, if there are several that reference each other, it is enough to
> include it in the top-level document.

Yes it sounds like it.  Thank you for the link.

I still think it is crazy to add these 8 pages to each time someone prints it....

Regards

- Carsten

Re: GFDL

[Achim Gratz]

Carsten Dominik writes:
> I still think it is crazy to add these 8 pages to each time someone prints it....

It fits on exactly two pages (or front and back of one page) if wrapped in

\begin{multicols}{2}
\scriptsize
…

and it is still a lot more readable (even if printed out on A5 instead
of A4) than the fineprint you get with commercial software.


Regards,
Achim.
-- 
+<[Q+ Matrix-12 WAVE#46+305 Neuron microQkb Andromeda XTk Blofeld]>+

DIY Stuff:
http://Synth.Stromeko.net/DIY.html

Re: GFDL

[Carsten Dominik]

On 9.3.2013, at 16:25, Achim Gratz <Stromeko@nexgo.de> wrote:

> Carsten Dominik writes:
>> I still think it is crazy to add these 8 pages to each time someone prints it....
> 
> It fits on exactly two pages (or front and back of one page) if wrapped in
> 
> \begin{multicols}{2}
> \scriptsize
> …
> 
> and it is still a lot more readable (even if printed out on A5 instead
> of A4) than the fineprint you get with commercial software.

Cool.  We should do this....

- Carsten

> 
> 
> Regards,
> Achim.
> -- 
> +<[Q+ Matrix-12 WAVE#46+305 Neuron microQkb Andromeda XTk Blofeld]>+
> 
> DIY Stuff:
> http://Synth.Stromeko.net/DIY.html
> 
> 

Re: GFDL

[Alan L Tyree]

On 10/03/13 02:11, Carsten Dominik wrote:
>
> On 9.3.2013, at 16:02, Achim Gratz <Stromeko@nexgo.de> wrote:
>
>> Carsten Dominik writes:
>>> I am wondering, are we required to include the full text of the GFDL
>>> in the manual?  I find it a big waste of space and feed that a link
>>> should do.  But I have not been able to find the rules that say what
>>> needs to be included in a document distributed under GFDL?
>>
>> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/fdl-howto
>> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/fdl-1.3.html
>>
>> "To use this License in a document you have written, include a copy of
>> the License in the document and put the following copyright and license
>> notices just after the title page:[…]"
>>
>> I read this: If there's just one document, it must contain the license
>> in full, if there are several that reference each other, it is enough to
>> include it in the top-level document.
>
> Yes it sounds like it.  Thank you for the link.
>
> I still think it is crazy to add these 8 pages to each time someone prints it....
>
> Regards
>
> - Carsten
>
I also think it is crazy, and I don't think it is necessary. Although 
the FSF might prefer you to include the whole licence, in my opinion 
there is no need to do so. The manual is released under the GFDL and so 
is subject to the terms of the license.

In my view, this statement from Creative Commons is accurate:

"How can I license my work?

There is no registration to use the Creative Commons licenses.

Licensing a work is as simple as selecting which of the six licenses 
best meets your goals, and then marking your work in some way so that 
others know that you have chosen to release the work under the terms of 
that license."

The important part here is that "others know", that is, it must be very 
clear that the manual is released subject to the GFDL. As a courtesy, a 
link to the GFDL or including a copy as part of the package might be nice.

Alan



-- 
Alan L Tyree                    http://www2.austlii.edu.au/~alan
Tel:  04 2748 6206		sip:172385@iptel.org

Re: GFDL

[Bastien]

Carsten Dominik <carsten.dominik@gmail.com> writes:

> On 9.3.2013, at 16:25, Achim Gratz <Stromeko@nexgo.de> wrote:
>
>> Carsten Dominik writes:
>>> I still think it is crazy to add these 8 pages to each time someone prints it....
>> 
>> It fits on exactly two pages (or front and back of one page) if wrapped in
>> 
>> \begin{multicols}{2}
>> \scriptsize
>> …
>> 
>> and it is still a lot more readable (even if printed out on A5 instead
>> of A4) than the fineprint you get with commercial software.
>
> Cool.  We should do this....

Agreed.

Feel free to make the change in org.texi if you know how to achieve
this in a simple way.  I checked the Texinfo manual and the control
over columns and font size is rudimentary.  My tests using @iftex
didn't go anywhere :/

-- 
 Bastien

Re: GFDL

[Achim Gratz]

Bastien writes:
> Feel free to make the change in org.texi if you know how to achieve
> this in a simple way.  I checked the Texinfo manual and the control
> over columns and font size is rudimentary.  My tests using @iftex
> didn't go anywhere :/

Obviously, multicols is a LaTeX package and that code snippet was from
one of my own documents that was written directly in LaTeX.  So, sadly,
I do not have any working example of how to do it in TeX, let alone
TeXinfo.  So we will have to ask elsewhere to get that kind of
expertise.


Regards,
Achim.
-- 
+<[Q+ Matrix-12 WAVE#46+305 Neuron microQkb Andromeda XTk Blofeld]>+

SD adaptation for Waldorf microQ V2.22R2:
http://Synth.Stromeko.net/Downloads.html#WaldorfSDada

Re: GFDL

[Bastien]

Achim Gratz <Stromeko@nexgo.de> writes:

> Obviously, multicols is a LaTeX package and that code snippet was from
> one of my own documents that was written directly in LaTeX.  So, sadly,
> I do not have any working example of how to do it in TeX, let alone
> TeXinfo.  So we will have to ask elsewhere to get that kind of
> expertise.

:(  

I'll keep this issue on my radar and see if something can be done in
the .texi file.

-- 
 Bastien

Re: GFDL

[Carsten Dominik]

Hi Alan,

thanks for chiming in.  As Achim quoted, the GFLD says that the license should be in the document, but that makes the GFDL almost unfit for anything below a book.

I have asked RMS about this, and he says that the license should be present in printed versions of the document.  I find it very hard to believe that this must be the case.  It bothers me mostly for the guide, where I did spend a lot of time to make it compact, and now something like one fifth of it is license text.  We may actually consider to re-release the guide under a different license.

Will try to find a solution here.

- Carsten

On 10.3.2013, at 01:43, Alan L Tyree <alantyree@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 10/03/13 02:11, Carsten Dominik wrote:
>> 
>> On 9.3.2013, at 16:02, Achim Gratz <Stromeko@nexgo.de> wrote:
>> 
>>> Carsten Dominik writes:
>>>> I am wondering, are we required to include the full text of the GFDL
>>>> in the manual?  I find it a big waste of space and feed that a link
>>>> should do.  But I have not been able to find the rules that say what
>>>> needs to be included in a document distributed under GFDL?
>>> 
>>> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/fdl-howto
>>> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/fdl-1.3.html
>>> 
>>> "To use this License in a document you have written, include a copy of
>>> the License in the document and put the following copyright and license
>>> notices just after the title page:[…]"
>>> 
>>> I read this: If there's just one document, it must contain the license
>>> in full, if there are several that reference each other, it is enough to
>>> include it in the top-level document.
>> 
>> Yes it sounds like it.  Thank you for the link.
>> 
>> I still think it is crazy to add these 8 pages to each time someone prints it....
>> 
>> Regards
>> 
>> - Carsten
>> 
> I also think it is crazy, and I don't think it is necessary. Although the FSF might prefer you to include the whole licence, in my opinion there is no need to do so. The manual is released under the GFDL and so is subject to the terms of the license.
> 
> In my view, this statement from Creative Commons is accurate:
> 
> "How can I license my work?
> 
> There is no registration to use the Creative Commons licenses.
> 
> Licensing a work is as simple as selecting which of the six licenses best meets your goals, and then marking your work in some way so that others know that you have chosen to release the work under the terms of that license."
> 
> The important part here is that "others know", that is, it must be very clear that the manual is released subject to the GFDL. As a courtesy, a link to the GFDL or including a copy as part of the package might be nice.
> 
> Alan
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Alan L Tyree                    http://www2.austlii.edu.au/~alan
> Tel:  04 2748 6206		sip:172385@iptel.org
> 
> 

Re: GFDL

[Bastien]

Hi Carsten,

Carsten Dominik <carsten.dominik@gmail.com> writes:

> I find it very hard to believe that this must be the case.  It
> bothers me mostly for the guide, where I did spend a lot of time to
> make it compact, and now something like one fifth of it is license
> text.  We may actually consider to re-release the guide under a
> different license.

It has to be noted that this policy has only been recently observed
for Emacs manuals... before I asked about the GPL licensing of Org's
manual on emacs-devel, there were a few manuals that still didn't
embed the license.

Also, I don't think this policy needs to be applied to orgguide.texi
since it is not distributed with GNU Emacs.  A simple sentence like
"You should have received a version of the GNU FDL license with GNU
Emacs" should be okay IMO.

Best,

-- 
 Bastien

Re: GFDL

[Marcin Borkowski]

Dnia 2013-03-19, o godz. 07:44:51
Carsten Dominik <carsten.dominik@gmail.com> napisał(a):

> Hi Alan,
> 
> thanks for chiming in.  As Achim quoted, the GFLD says that the
> license should be in the document, but that makes the GFDL almost
> unfit for anything below a book.
> 
> I have asked RMS about this, and he says that the license should be
> present in printed versions of the document.  I find it very hard to
> believe that this must be the case.  It bothers me mostly for the
> guide, where I did spend a lot of time to make it compact, and now
> something like one fifth of it is license text.  We may actually
> consider to re-release the guide under a different license.

Just a n00b's (and IANAL's) 2cents here: what about including the GFDL
in, say 5pt font?  Yes, it is awful, but at least does not take up
dozens of pages...

> Will try to find a solution here.
> 
> - Carsten

Best,

-- 
Marcin Borkowski
http://octd.wmi.amu.edu.pl/en/Marcin_Borkowski
Adam Mickiewicz University

Re: GFDL

[Bastien]

Hi Marcin,

Marcin Borkowski <mbork@wmi.amu.edu.pl> writes:

> Just a n00b's (and IANAL's) 2cents here: what about including the GFDL
> in, say 5pt font?  Yes, it is awful, but at least does not take up
> dozens of pages...

Yes -- but I don't know how to set the font to 5pt in .texi files.
AFAIK, you can change the font _globally_ to @fonttextsize 10 or 11,
but not for one section only and not below 10pt... I'd be glad to be
wrong of course !

-- 
 Bastien

Re: GFDL

[Marcin Borkowski]

Dnia 2013-03-19, o godz. 22:35:59
Bastien <bzg@altern.org> napisał(a):

> Hi Marcin,
> 
> Marcin Borkowski <mbork@wmi.amu.edu.pl> writes:
> 
> > Just a n00b's (and IANAL's) 2cents here: what about including the
> > GFDL in, say 5pt font?  Yes, it is awful, but at least does not
> > take up dozens of pages...
> 
> Yes -- but I don't know how to set the font to 5pt in .texi files.
> AFAIK, you can change the font _globally_ to @fonttextsize 10 or 11,
> but not for one section only and not below 10pt... I'd be glad to be
> wrong of course !
> 

What about

@tex
\global\font\legalese=cmr5\global\legalese
@end tex

...

@tex
\global\rm
@end tex

?

(Note: I'm not a TeXinfo expert - just skimmed through the manual and
used my plain TeX powah from the old times I didn't use LaTeX;).)

Best,

-- 
Marcin Borkowski
http://octd.wmi.amu.edu.pl/en/Marcin_Borkowski
Adam Mickiewicz University

Re: GFDL

[Marcin Borkowski]

Dnia 2013-03-20, o godz. 03:56:18
Marcin Borkowski <mbork@wmi.amu.edu.pl> napisał(a):

> What about
> 
> @tex
> \global\font\legalese=cmr5\global\legalese
> @end tex
> 
> ...
> 
> @tex
> \global\rm
> @end tex
> 
> ?

I don't have working texi2dvi on my computer, so the following is still
untested, but might be better than the previous one:

@tex
\global\font\legalese=cmr5\aftergroup\legalese
@end tex

...

@tex
\aftergroup\rm
@end tex

Regards,

-- 
Marcin Borkowski
http://octd.wmi.amu.edu.pl/en/Marcin_Borkowski
Adam Mickiewicz University

Re: GFDL

[Bastien]

Hi Marcin,

Marcin Borkowski <mbork@wmi.amu.edu.pl> writes:

> I don't have working texi2dvi on my computer, so the following is still
> untested, but might be better than the previous one:

Thanks!  It actually works _somehow_.  But the display is ugly: @code{...}
strings do not use the small size, and the line spacing is too big.

Let us know when you can experiment and get good results.

Best,

-- 
 Bastien

Re: GFDL

[Marcin Borkowski]

Dnia 2013-03-20, o godz. 15:00:43
Bastien <bzg@altern.org> napisał(a):

> Hi Marcin,
> 
> Marcin Borkowski <mbork@wmi.amu.edu.pl> writes:
> 
> > I don't have working texi2dvi on my computer, so the following is
> > still untested, but might be better than the previous one:
> 
> Thanks!  It actually works _somehow_.  But the display is ugly:
> @code{...} strings do not use the small size, and the line spacing is
> too big.
> 
> Let us know when you can experiment and get good results.
> 
> Best,
> 

Can you send me the intermediate .tex file?  (If not, write me that -
I'll try to install texi2dvi on my box.)

Best,

-- 
Marcin Borkowski
http://octd.wmi.amu.edu.pl/en/Marcin_Borkowski
Adam Mickiewicz University

Re: GFDL

[Marcin Borkowski]

Dnia 2013-03-20, o godz. 16:25:25
Marcin Borkowski <mbork@wmi.amu.edu.pl> napisał(a):

> Can you send me the intermediate .tex file?  (If not, write me that -
> I'll try to install texi2dvi on my box.)

OK, my fault; I thought that the process looks like this: .texi ->
.tex -> dvi/pdf.

So.  I am not an expert at texinfo - and it seems that it is not very
configurable - but I managed to devise this (very ugly) hack:

@c put this at the beginning of doclicense.texi
@tex
\global\font\legalese=cmr5
\global\font\legalesett=cmtt5
\global\font\legalesesl=cmti5
\global\let\rm=\legalese
\global\let\tt=\legalesett
\global\let\sl=\legalesesl
\global\baselineskip=6pt
\global\legalese
@end tex

It has still a few problems: one font is not changed (and I tried a
few tricks to change it - to no avail:(...) - I'd suggest dropping the
slanted style on the last page; the copyright sign is broken (I'd
suggest using (C) instead); the header is also set in smaller font
(and I have no simple idea how to circumvent it; I guess it would be
doable, after some digging in texinfo.texi - not this time, though,
sorry).

The problem is, that plain TeX (unlike LaTeX) does not have any font
management/selection system - just mapping commands to filenames.  On
top of that, texinfo.tex uses its own system (which I don't have
enough time now to fathom).  A mess, in one word.

HTH anyway

-- 
Marcin Borkowski
http://octd.wmi.amu.edu.pl/en/Marcin_Borkowski
Adam Mickiewicz University

Re: GFDL

[Bastien]

Hi Marcin,

Marcin Borkowski <mbork@wmi.amu.edu.pl> writes:

> HTH anyway

Well, it did!  It showed that it *is* possible somehow...
and thanks for the TeX lesson btw.  I can't integrate this
like that for now, but lets remember the hack for when we
will really be annoyed again by the +10 GFDL pages.

Thanks,

-- 
 Bastien

Re: GFDL

[Ben Finney]

Carsten Dominik <carsten.dominik@gmail.com> writes:

> I have asked RMS about this, and he says that the [GNU FDL] license
> should be present in printed versions of the document. I find it very
> hard to believe that this must be the case.

That matches my understanding. It may be hard to believe that such an
obnoxious intent was deliberate, but I think it is in our interests to
believe it true.

> It bothers me mostly for the guide, where I did spend a lot of time to
> make it compact, and now something like one fifth of it is license
> text.  We may actually consider to re-release the guide under a
> different license.

Please use this as an opportunity to seriously consider relicensing the
entire work (programs, documentation, etc.) of Org-mode under the same
license: the GNU GPL. It does not have the special problems of the FDL,
and having the whole work under the same license terms makes it simpler
and clearer.

> Will try to find a solution here.

Wishing you fortune in coming to a good solution.

-- 
 \        “The problem with television is that the people must sit and |
  `\    keep their eyes glued on a screen: the average American family |
_o__)                 hasn't time for it.” —_The New York Times_, 1939 |
Ben Finney

Re: GFDL

[Bastien]

Hi Ben,

Ben Finney <ben+emacs@benfinney.id.au> writes:

>> It bothers me mostly for the guide, where I did spend a lot of time to
>> make it compact, and now something like one fifth of it is license
>> text.  We may actually consider to re-release the guide under a
>> different license.
>
> Please use this as an opportunity to seriously consider relicensing the
> entire work (programs, documentation, etc.) of Org-mode under the same
> license: the GNU GPL. It does not have the special problems of the FDL,
> and having the whole work under the same license terms makes it simpler
> and clearer.

Well, relicensing the Org compact guide under GNU GPL is definitely
feasible, but relicensing the Org manual is (sadly) not.  Let's take
the feasible step first?

-- 
 Bastien

Re: GFDL

[Sebastien Vauban]

Hi Bastien,

Bastien wrote:
> Ben Finney <ben+emacs-TqlCGjI+HWGnbCmf7pGUHw@public.gmane.org> writes:
>>> It bothers me mostly for the guide, where I did spend a lot of time to
>>> make it compact, and now something like one fifth of it is license
>>> text.  We may actually consider to re-release the guide under a
>>> different license.
>>
>> Please use this as an opportunity to seriously consider relicensing the
>> entire work (programs, documentation, etc.) of Org-mode under the same
>> license: the GNU GPL. It does not have the special problems of the FDL,
>> and having the whole work under the same license terms makes it simpler
>> and clearer.
>
> Well, relicensing the Org compact guide under GNU GPL is definitely
> feasible, but relicensing the Org manual is (sadly) not.  Let's take
> the feasible step first?

FMI, why is GNU GPL not applicable to the manual?

Best regards,
  Seb

-- 
Sebastien Vauban

Re: GFDL

[Bastien]

"Sebastien Vauban" <sva-news-D0wtAvR13HarG/iDocfnWg@public.gmane.org>
writes:

> FMI, why is GNU GPL not applicable to the manual?

Because the manual is part of GNU Emacs, which is part of the GNU
project, and every project in the GNU project is required to publish
manuals in GNU FDL only.  Dual licensing is not an option here.

There are many discussions about this... a can of (dead) worms.

-- 
 Bastien

Re: GFDL

[François Pinard]

"Sebastien Vauban" <sva-news-D0wtAvR13HarG/iDocfnWg@public.gmane.org>
writes:

> FMI, why is GNU GPL not applicable to the manual?

While I would have long to say, here, I rather censor myself, mostly.

I sometimes happen to think that the GDFL happened not so long after
Richard Stallman and I had a harsh and long dispute about the GNU tar
manual.  In short, I wanted to publish it, Richard wanted that I refrain
from doing so: he expected the manual to be a source of FSF revenue.
The GDFL wording opens the door to Richard's restrictions, while the
GPL, which I used, is more in the spirit of the remainder of the FSF.

GNU tar has it own set of technical difficulties, and I hope I've been
able to put it back on track so it became maintainable again.  But in
many non-technical ways, GNU tar has been an administrative nightmare.

François

Re: GFDL

[Carsten Dominik]

On 21 mei 2013, at 15:34, François Pinard <pinard@iro.umontreal.ca> wrote:

> "Sebastien Vauban" <sva-news-D0wtAvR13HarG/iDocfnWg@public.gmane.org>
> writes:
> 
>> FMI, why is GNU GPL not applicable to the manual?
> 
> While I would have long to say, here, I rather censor myself, mostly.
> 
> I sometimes happen to think that the GDFL happened not so long after
> Richard Stallman and I had a harsh and long dispute about the GNU tar
> manual.  In short, I wanted to publish it, Richard wanted that I refrain
> from doing so: he expected the manual to be a source of FSF revenue.
> The GDFL wording opens the door to Richard's restrictions,

I am curious, what passage does make such restrictions
possible, and which kinds of restrictions?

- Carsten


> while the
> GPL, which I used, is more in the spirit of the remainder of the FSF.
> 
> GNU tar has it own set of technical difficulties, and I hope I've been
> able to put it back on track so it became maintainable again.  But in
> many non-technical ways, GNU tar has been an administrative nightmare.
> 
> François
> 

Re: GFDL

[François Pinard]

Carsten Dominik <carsten.dominik@gmail.com> writes:

> I am curious, what passage does make such restrictions possible, and
> which kinds of restrictions?

Oh, I did not read the GFDL in quite a years, and really have no
interest in diving and scrutinizing it again :-).  More away I am from
all this, better I feel :-).  Sorry, just forget I've written this
morning, I was likely in some strange mood.

I do love the FSF idea and theory, and supported the GNU project in an
intense way for maybe more than twenty years.  But by now, in practice,
I just cannot stand their slightest abuse, anymore.  I'm all for
programming freedom, but this ought to include programmer freedom too!

François

[OT] Contributors to org.texi (was: GFDL)

[Memnon Anon]

"Sebastien Vauban" <sva-news@mygooglest.com>
writes:

> Bastien wrote:
>> Well, relicensing the Org compact guide under GNU GPL is definitely
>> feasible, but relicensing the Org manual is (sadly) not.  Let's take
>> the feasible step first?
>
> FMI, why is GNU GPL not applicable to the manual?

Hehe, on an unrelated side note, that made me curious: 
Who did actually end up in org.texi, and how would I start to find out?

0. $ git blame -C -C -M -e org.texi > ~/git-blame.txt
   (I searched the web for that ;)
1. We are only interested in the email addresses, so quick clean up with
   a keyboard macro.
2. Get rid of duplicates: 
   M-x sort-lines
   C-x h 
   M-x shell-command-on-region 
   uniq

And... I see 67 different addresses. Some clearly belong to one person,
so getting rid of the obvious ones my count goes down to ... 58?

Wow... 
Fun.

Back to work :)

Memon

Re: GFDL

[Carsten Dominik]

On 21.5.2013, at 17:03, François Pinard <pinard@iro.umontreal.ca> wrote:

> Carsten Dominik <carsten.dominik@gmail.com> writes:
> 
>> I am curious, what passage does make such restrictions possible, and
>> which kinds of restrictions?
> 
> Oh, I did not read the GFDL in quite a years, and really have no
> interest in diving and scrutinizing it again :-).  

OK, I will not ask again. :)

> More away I am from
> all this, better I feel :-).  Sorry, just forget I've written this
> morning, I was likely in some strange mood.
> 
> I do love the FSF idea and theory, and supported the GNU project in an
> intense way for maybe more than twenty years.  But by now, in practice,
> I just cannot stand their slightest abuse, anymore.  I'm all for
> programming freedom, but this ought to include programmer freedom too!
> 
> François
> 

Re: GFDL

[Ben Finney]

Bastien <bzg@gnu.org> writes:

> "Sebastien Vauban" <sva-news@mygooglest.com>
> writes:
>
> > FMI, why is GNU GPL not applicable to the manual?
>
> Because the manual is part of GNU Emacs, which is part of the GNU
> project, and every project in the GNU project is required to publish
> manuals in GNU FDL only. Dual licensing is not an option here.

Wow, I didn't realise the FSF policy was *that* restrictive.

Publishing the manual under both FDL and GPL should satisfy the FSF's
legitimate requirements for their work, so I don't know how they justify
refusing a manual that happens to also be published under some non-FDL
license.

Do you have a reference from some FSF official for that restriction?

> There are many discussions about this... a can of (dead) worms.

Agreed, thank you.

-- 
 \                “Every sentence I utter must be understood not as an |
  `\                      affirmation, but as a question.” —Niels Bohr |
_o__)                                                                  |
Ben Finney

Re: GFDL

[Bastien]

Hi Ben,

Ben Finney <ben+emacs@benfinney.id.au> writes:

> Do you have a reference from some FSF official for that restriction?

See this discussion:

  http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2012-12/msg00375.html

Also, when RMS discovered that the Org manual was published by
http://www.network-theory.co.uk he asked for details on the
publication -- I said it was none of my business and redirected
him to Brian Gough, who led this publication effort with Carsten.

I don't know what is the output of the conversion he may have had
with Brian.  Maybe RMS wanted the FSF to publish the manual.

HTH,

-- 
 Bastien

Re: GFDL

[Ben Finney]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1145 bytes --]

On 27-May-2013, Bastien wrote:
> Ben Finney <ben+emacs@benfinney.id.au> writes:
> > Do you have a reference from some FSF official for that restriction?
> 
> See this discussion:
>   http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2012-12/msg00375.html

Thanks very much for that information.

I had not realised how obstructionist RMS has become on this issue,
blocking attempts event to dual-license a document under at least one free
license (the FDL is not a free license by the FSF's own definition), and
insisting that Debian change its social contract to allow non-free works.

Given that entrenched position, the only hope for new freely-licensed FSF
documentation now seems to be for RMS's authority to be over-ruled on this
from within FSF, which could take some time.

It's good to have this to refer back to, so I'm grateful for this
discussion.

-- 
 \      “Software patents provide one more means of controlling access |
  `\      to information. They are the tool of choice for the internet |
_o__)                                     highwayman.” —Anthony Taylor |
Ben Finney <ben@benfinney.id.au>

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]