The GPL is not fine for documentation ...
Posted Jul 5, 2012 6:22 UTC (Thu) by JoeBuck
In reply to: Zacchiroli: working with FSF on Debian Free-ness assessment
Parent article: Zacchiroli: working with FSF on Debian Free-ness assessment
... because every time it is used that way, it induces large numbers of people to violate copyright. Let's say you GPL a document, and you prepared it with LaTeX. That means LaTeX is the source code, the preferred form for modifying the work. If I give someone a PDF of the document without the LaTeX, or without a written offer, good for three years, to provide the LaTeX on request, I'm a violator. But since people don't understand that, everyone breaks the rules. Only the copyright holder has standing to sue, but some day some copyright holder of GPLed software, say Oracle, will be a jerk about it.
Likewise, if you create an image with the GIMP and GPL it, a JPEG or PNG of the image does not suffice for distribution. The XCF has to be retained, and made available to any recipient of the image.
That doesn't mean I would argue for the FSF's documentation licenses as they have all kinds of problems. The Creative Commons licenses are better for non-software free media.
to post comments)