[freeroleplay] [Fwd: Re: Clarification on the GPL/FDL]
- From: Ricardo Gladwell <ax0n@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: FRPGC <freeroleplay@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 27 Nov 2003 10:34:56 +0000
Hi All,
This is a correspondence with Nathanael Nerode who wrote an interesting
article on the various issues surrounding the FDL which can be found here:
http://home.twcny.rr.com/nerode/neroden/fdl.html
Some more links are as follows:
http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/ddp-policy/ddp-policy.en.pdf
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/debian-legal-200202/msg00195.html
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200304/msg00246.html
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2001/debian-legal-200111/msg00006.html
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200305/msg00497.html
http://www.codon.org.uk/~mjg59/fdl.html
http://turnbull.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp/Tools/Attitude/fdl-harmful.html
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/04/20/1357236
http://www.advogato.org/article/682.html
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: Clarification on the GPL/FDL
Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2003 10:50:22 -0500
From: Nathanael Nerode <neroden@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: Ricardo Gladwell <ax0n@xxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <3FC3570C.2000302@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Ricardo Gladwell wrote:
> Hi Nathanael,
>
> I represent the FRPGC (Free Roleplaying Community), and organisation
> dedicated to the advocacy and production of free content roleplaying
> games. We've been concerned by the recent reports of the non-free nature
> of Invariant Sections. We recently came across your excellent article
> "Why You Shouldn't Use the GNU FDL" about which we have some questions.
>
> You suggest that, in situations where people are using the GFDL, they
> should use the GPL, adding a note clarifying what I consider to be
> "object code" and "source code".
>
> As I understand it, the GPL requires that you "may not impose any
> further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights". Surely
> adding restrictions to the definition of "source/object code" is iposing
> further restrictions, breaking compatability with the normal GPL
> downstream?
*Don't* make them actual restrictions. Such notes are simply a matter
of clarifying the issue for people who don't understand that manuals
(for example) can *have* source code and object code. (Believe it or
not, this comes up a lot!) That's why I said that the note should refer
to "what you consider to be" object code. It's not supposed to be
legally binding; it's just supposed to be informative.
I think the GPL definition of source code ("preferred form for
modification") is quite sufficient, legally, but it often confuses
people when used outside the context of computer programs. The GPL
doesn't define "object code", so some examples would certainly be good
there, but again they're not supposed to be restrictions, just
clarifications for the confused.
> Similarly, would it be possible to add a note to the GPL copyright
> notcie clarifying that we consider "source code" to refer to a
> "Transparent" copy of the document? Or is this too strict?
What problem are you trying to solve here? :-)
Note that GFDL-"transparent" copies do *not* qualify as the "preferred
form for modification" in some situations! So this may actually be a
"loosening"!
It has been pointed out that the GPL has some disadvantages in book
publication; notably, the "preferred form for modification" is never
going to be a printed book, so each book would have to have a disk or CD
attached, or have the "three-year offer" attached.
For that problem, it is probably best to add a rider to the GPL giving
additional *permissions* (this is allowed, where additional restrictions
aren't) to distribute without the "source code" in certain situations
(perhaps printed books).
--Nathanael Nerode
--
Ricardo Gladwell
President, Free Roleplaying Community
http://www.freeroleplay.org/
president@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Other related posts:
- » [freeroleplay] [Fwd: Re: Clarification on the GPL/FDL]
