Open Source and Free Documentation Licenses, Part 1: The GNU FDL (O'ReillyNet) [LWN.net]

Open Source and Free Documentation Licenses, Part 1: The GNU FDL (O'ReillyNet)

Posted Sep 17, 2004 19:39 UTC (Fri) by uriel (guest, #20754) [Link]

I have not read the article, my head hurts too much to read about legalese ;)

But: "The GNU Free Documentation License, described in this article, applies to documents the same requirements of reciprocity applied by the GNU General Public License to software." is completely bullshit.

I'm no fan of the GPL, but the GFDL is way more restrictive than the GPL or any Free/Open software license, not to mention it's as bloated as a license can get, anyone read it? it's like 20 pages of cryptic legalese.

If I'm going to release something under a license, the first thing is to understand what the license does(and no, I don't trust what others might tell me about it, it's my ass that is on the legal line), and while I can kind of understand the GPL(despite there being disagreement about some of it's points by various people(Linux binary drivers anyone?)), I can kind of get an idea of what it does; not so with the GFDL, and I doubt anyone really understands it completely.

Licenses are like software, they should be KISS, that is why most times I use (new-style)BSD or just public domain.

Best regards

uriel

Open Source and Free Documentation Licenses, Part 1: The GNU FDL (O'ReillyNet)

Posted Sep 17, 2004 19:46 UTC (Fri) by uriel (guest, #20754) [Link]

Sorry, to reply to myself, but now I re-read what it says and the statement: "applies to documents the same requirements of reciprocity" is more or less true, but IMHO misleading; I hope he clarifies this and points out the many restrictions imposed by the GFDL that are not imposed by the GPL.

uriel

P.S.: BTW, in a somewhat troll-ish note, the GFDL proves wrong all the people that says that RMS always stands by his (supposed) principles; the GFDL is certainly not "libre" by any definition of the word.

Open Source and Free Documentation Licenses, Part 1: The GNU FDL (O'ReillyNet)

Posted Sep 17, 2004 20:47 UTC (Fri) by mmarsh (subscriber, #17029) [Link]

Yeah, I took a look at the article to see if that was made clearer, which it is. The author was solely referring to the "viral" (do we have a better term for this?) nature of the license.

Open Source and Free Documentation Licenses, Part 1: The GNU FDL (O'ReillyNet)

Posted Sep 17, 2004 23:27 UTC (Fri) by kalgan (guest, #23843) [Link]

~~viral~~ copyleft ?

Replacement for the ``viral'' epithet

Posted Sep 18, 2004 16:43 UTC (Sat) by Max.Hyre (subscriber, #1054) [Link]

``continuous''?
``reciprocal''? (which the author used a number of times)
``undetachable''? (ungainly)
``inherited''?

Open Source and Free Documentation Licenses, Part 1: The GNU FDL (O'ReillyNet)

Posted Sep 18, 2004 5:47 UTC (Sat) by lacostej (subscriber, #2760) [Link]

I haven't read the FDL and quickly read teh O'Reilly article.

But I was at a Stallman's talk yesterday. My understanding of his point of view regarding documentation is that there are different categories of things to which copyright should apply differently: technical work, work of opinion and art work (greatly summarized).

In particular work that express the point of view of one person should not be modified. Otherwise you can modify the intent of the original document and introduce a misattribution. The restrictions of the FDL, while I haven't read them, perhaps follow that principle? So the principle is KISS, but the different rules that enforce the principle aren't perhaps so obvious.

Open Source and Free Documentation Licenses, Part 1: The GNU FDL (O'ReillyNet)

Posted Sep 18, 2004 14:16 UTC (Sat) by uriel (guest, #20754) [Link]

uh? what principle is KISS? all I see in your post is a lot of vague hand waving...

Copyright is already messy enough as it is, to say the it should apply differently to different kinds of works it's making it some orders of magnitude worse.

Open Source and Free Documentation Licenses, Part 1: The GNU FDL (O'ReillyNet)

Posted Sep 18, 2004 17:58 UTC (Sat) by sdalley (subscriber, #18550) [Link]

"Keep It Simple, Stupid"

Open Source and Free Documentation Licenses, Part 1: The GNU FDL (O'ReillyNet)

Posted Sep 18, 2004 20:24 UTC (Sat) by ballombe (subscriber, #9523) [Link]

The problem with that line of reasoning is that the GFDL is routinely applied
to documents which are technical works and not "work that express the point of view
of one person". Examples are GNU software manuals and Wikipaedia.

Of course you can include personal opinion in a software manual, but the GFDL
allow the author to forbid to remove the "work of opinion" from the "technical work".
This is stretching the protection for "work that express the point of view of one
person" too far, in my opinion.

Open Source and Free Documentation Licenses, Part 1: The GNU FDL (O'ReillyNet)

Posted Sep 20, 2004 8:40 UTC (Mon) by job (subscriber, #670) [Link]

I think the same risks with misattribution, leaning towards slander, are
the what people are scared of when first releasing free code. The GPL has
shown us that the system works and additional resitrictions are not
necessary.

If a software forks without proper attribution, it generally fails to
attract enough mindset to survive. I believe the same would be true with
documentation. In my eyes the FDL is a solution in search for a problem.

Open Source and Free Documentation Licenses, Part 1: The GNU FDL (O'ReillyNet)

Posted Sep 17, 2004 20:27 UTC (Fri) by piman (subscriber, #8957) [Link]

The Open Gaming License is not a free license by any definition, either. You are forbidden from using any trademarks in documents under it, without prior written permission. It also tries to copyright things like "plots, thematic elements... concepts, [and] themes", as well as game mechanics. All of these fall outside the bounds of normal copyright.

The OGL is much closer to Shared Source than any free license (especially the BSD license mentioned in the article). The idea is that you are granted a "sandbox" to do things in that's smaller than you are entitled to under copyright law, with the proviso that the company won't sue you into the ground and ruin you with legal fees. The added implication is that they will sue you if you reject the license and continue using the material as you are allowed to under ordinary copyright law.