GPL works just great for documentation

Posted Jun 30, 2010 16:53 UTC (Wed) by SLi (subscriber, #53131)
Parent article: Two GCC stories

There's no reason why GPL is a bad license for documentation. That's just GNU propaganda trying to justify their non-free license for documentation (yes, having to include a lengthy RMS manifesto verbatim with documentation snippets is clearly non-free to me).

There was really no problem until FSF decided GPL isn't good for documentation and made GFDL. I'm not aware of a single legal issue with using GPL with documentation. The core concepts are really quite clear, like "preferred form of modification".

to post comments

GPL works just great for documentation

Posted Jun 30, 2010 20:18 UTC (Wed) by josh (subscriber, #17465) [Link] (1 responses)

Agreed entirely. The best possible license for a project's documentation is exactly the same license that project's source code uses.

GPL works just great for documentation

Posted Jun 30, 2010 22:47 UTC (Wed) by ballombe (subscriber, #9523) [Link]

Furthermore: one must not advertise that software foo is licensed under the GNU GPL when the documentation is licensed under the GFDL, because the documentation s a part of the software. One have to mention both licenses, else it is misleading.

GPL works just great for documentation

Posted Jul 1, 2010 7:29 UTC (Thu) by mjthayer (guest, #39183) [Link] (5 responses)

>There was really no problem until FSF decided GPL isn't good for documentation and made GFDL.

Simple solution though - just dual licence any bits that may end up in the documentation.

GPL works just great for documentation

Posted Jul 1, 2010 8:31 UTC (Thu) by liljencrantz (guest, #28458) [Link] (4 responses)

The problem is that documentation comments are embedded within the source code, potentially in _any_ file. You either have to dual license the entire project under the GFDL, or make a silly clause like «any comment anywhere in the source code is also licensed under the GFDL», something that I doubt you're allowed to do.

GPL works just great for documentation

Posted Jul 1, 2010 8:39 UTC (Thu) by mjthayer (guest, #39183) [Link] (3 responses)

> The problem is that documentation comments are embedded within the source code, potentially in _any_ file. You either have to dual license the entire project under the GFDL, or make a silly clause like «any comment anywhere in the source code is also licensed under the GFDL», something that I doubt you're allowed to do.

It works if you apply the policy before you start creating documentation comments, which would make some sense. Then you just reject patches that don't comply.

Or if you mark "approved" documentation comments in some way.

GPL works just great for documentation

Posted Jul 1, 2010 10:17 UTC (Thu) by liljencrantz (guest, #28458) [Link] (2 responses)

Sounds like a maintenance nightmare, pure and simple.

GPL works just great for documentation

Posted Jul 1, 2010 11:20 UTC (Thu) by sflintham (guest, #47422) [Link] (1 responses)

Dual-licensing all the code under GPLv3 and GFDL wouldn't be a maintenance burden though. And since the FSF requires copyright assignments, this should be easy. What would be wrong with this solution? Would having the code available under a GFDL licence grant any undesirable options to anyone?

GPL works just great for documentation

Posted Jul 2, 2010 15:50 UTC (Fri) by cortana (subscriber, #24596) [Link]

If the documentation was available under the GPL then others would be able to distribute it without including the propaganda that the GFDL forces you to leave in.

GPL works just great for documentation

Posted Jul 1, 2010 8:29 UTC (Thu) by liljencrantz (guest, #28458) [Link] (5 responses)

Exactly.

Code is text, just like documentation. They are both usually stored in human readable form and compiled into machine readable form before use. Many documentation languages, like TeX and PS, are simply programing languages optimized for generating documentation. Others, like html, come with a full featured programming language embedded. Most modern computer languages support writing documentation and source code as a single entity, that can be used by different compilers to generate either a documentation document or a running program.

GPL concepts like preferred format and prohibiting further restrictions are equally applicable to code and documentation. The clause about selling GPLed works is more relevant for documentation than for software; it allows you to charge money for high quality printed versions of a text, while forcing you to include the source version of the text. The company I work for releases all documentation under GPL3. The Debian project recommends the GPL for documentation (http://www.debian.org/vote/2006/vote_001.en.html#amendmen...).

Corbet, it seems to me that the only argument against using the GPL for documentation is that FSF says so, please elaborate on why you consider the GPL «a poor fit for text».

GPL works just great for documentation

Posted Jul 2, 2010 8:43 UTC (Fri) by dd9jn (✭ supporter ✭, #4459) [Link] (2 responses)

Right. The GPL is just fine for documentation. If you want to print a book it is easy to glue a CDROM into it or put in the required written promise to deliver the source code/text. The FDL has been forced on the GNU maintainers without a ny valid reasons; only a few of them silently refused to do that and keep on using the GPL for docs.

GPL works just great for documentation

Posted Jul 9, 2010 0:11 UTC (Fri) by Wol (subscriber, #4433) [Link] (1 responses)

The problem with "gluing a CD rom in a book" is REAL in the EU, or in the UK at least.

Books, in the UK, are zero-rated for VAT. A typical computer reference book costs £40. On the other hand, a "book plus CD" combo is liable for VAT - at £40 this will be £8.

So any poor sod buying that book is going to get stung for $15 dollars tax for a "freebie" CD :-(

Cheers,
Wol

VAT

Posted Jul 14, 2010 14:24 UTC (Wed) by edmundo (guest, #616) [Link]

You don't have to pay VAT on the whole price of a "book plus CD". You are allowed to apportion the price and pay VAT on just the CD component. However, it's a complication that you may prefer to avoid.

GPL works just great for documentation

Posted Jul 2, 2010 12:07 UTC (Fri) by njwhite (guest, #51848) [Link] (1 responses)

This seems like a good point, I hadn't really considered GPL for documentation, but I agree, it seems concepts like preferred format of modification are pretty clear in the case of documentation too, and are just as useful. Am I right in thinking that the Linux docs are GPL (I don't see anything to the contrary, though I didn't look hard)?

I'd be interested to hear someone weigh in on why it may not be appropriate.

GPL works just great for documentation

Posted Jul 2, 2010 20:41 UTC (Fri) by vonbrand (subscriber, #4458) [Link]

Depends on what "Linux docs" you are talking about.

The stuff under Documentation/ in your local kernel source is GPLv2
The manpages here state "GPLv2+ and GPL+ and BSD and MIT and Copyright only and IEEE"
The stuff on TLDP is GFDL 1.2 by default, but others apply to various parts
The book by our esteemed editor and others is Creative Commons Attribuution-ShareAlike 2.0

I'm sure there are countless others, going all the way from public domain to completely closed.