Linux Device Drivers, Third Edition now online

Posted Mar 15, 2005 14:11 UTC (Tue) by ballombe (subscriber, #9523)
In reply to: Linux Device Drivers, Third Edition now online by riddochc
Parent article: Linux Device Drivers, Third Edition now online

> The GPL really isn't appropriate for books. It's very particularly targeted to code rather than text or other media. What does "linking" mean in a non-code context, hmm?

The GPL does not speak of 'linking': the only use of the verb 'to link' in the GPL text is in the last sentence advertising the LGPL.

So far no one has presented arguments that the GPL was not suitable to text that was backed by the actual GPL text.

Linux Device Drivers, Third Edition now online

Posted Mar 16, 2005 1:23 UTC (Wed) by riddochc (guest, #43) [Link] (1 responses)

So, you're right that it doesn't mention linking... much. "This General Public License does not permit incorporating your program into proprietary programs. If your program is a subroutine library, you may consider it more useful to permit linking proprietary applications with the library."

But that was just one example of my point. Maybe the fact that the GPL uses the word "Program" more than fifty times, and the word "document" once, and only in the context that "Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies of this license document, but changing it is not allowed."

You don't suppose a different license might be more appropriate for a document than a license that doesn't even refer to the work it's licensing as a document?

Linux Device Drivers, Third Edition now online

Posted Mar 17, 2005 21:14 UTC (Thu) by piman (guest, #8957) [Link]

The word "Program" is not the same as the word "program". "Program" is a technical term for the scope of the GPL that referrs to the work being licensed. It just happens that most Programs are also programs, but it's perfectly acceptable for a Program to be something other than a program.

Consider the analogous "float an_integer = 3.14".

Why the GPL is wrong for documentation

Posted Mar 17, 2005 2:13 UTC (Thu) by JoeBuck (subscriber, #2330) [Link] (1 responses)

You think there are no problems with applying the GPL to documentation? OK, here's one. You have a GPLed manual, printed out on paper. You give it to a friend. Is that legal?

Answer: no, unless you jump through some extra hoops. You need to either provide your friend with the source code for the book (LaTex source, DocBook, OpenOffice file, whatever), or you need to give your friend a written offer, good for three years, to provide the source later on whenever he demands it (though you can charge a fee to cover your expenses in doing this).

Even if you want to distribute a PDF, you still need to provide the source, since a PDF is not a preferred form for modification. It will do to put the source on the same FTP or HTTP server.

Why the GPL is fine for documentation (where desired)

Posted Mar 17, 2005 7:39 UTC (Thu) by rickmoen (subscriber, #6943) [Link]

Joe Buck wrote:

You think there are no problems with applying the GPL to documentation? OK, here's one. You have a GPLed manual, printed out on paper. You give it to a friend. Is that legal?

Actually, since you're a non-comercial redistributor, you simply pass along upstream's offer of access to the preferred format, persuant to GPLv2 clause 3c.

The obvious place to use GPL for documentation is for HTML docs, or online docs with builtin hyperlinks to SGML or XML source, etc. In that case the "Master copy is at [URL]" header serves as the aforementioned upstream written offer, regardless of how the thing gets subsequently redistributed.

And that's pretty much what Michael Stutz wrote, too.

Rick Moen
rick@linuxmafia.com