Slashdot Mirror
GNU Free Documentation License 1.1 Out
Big Gaute writes "The final version of the GNU FDL (1.1) is now out. It contains a number of changes from version 1.0; for instance there is now a mechanism to make sure that the good name of an author is not used to endorse modified versions unless they so wish. " This comes shortly on the heels of the GNU FDL 1.0.
I'm not sure I like this as much as I like the Open Content License. The FDL seems a lot more restrictive than the GPL or LGPL ever was. Then again, documentation is very different from software, so these added restrictions might well be necessary.
It seems as though the FDL is geared specifically towards software documentation, whereas the OPL is more general-purpose. I wonder if this was intentional. Somehow I'm not certain that it was.
From: Nathan Wallwork <xyzzy@ladb.unm.edu>
To: gnu@gnu.org
Subject: FDL, section 7, typo + question
Section 7 of FDL 1.1 contains a typo:
> an "aggregate", and this this License
^^^^^
Also, I have a question about section 7, which perhaps should prompt a clarification of section 7.
Suppose I want to create an "aggregate" containing three works, one an independent work not covered by the FDL, and the other two both released under the FDL, but each of these three documents are roughly the same size, each about one third the total "aggregate".
It would seem that section 7, as worded in version 1.1, would make this impossible because both FDL documents would require that I use thier Cover Text, and I cannot satisfy both requirements at the same time.
Would it make sense to modify section 7 to change the requirement from one quarter to one half, or to say something like 'The requirement to use this document's Cover Text in an "aggregate" may be waived if the "aggregate" contains another FDL document which is larger than this one, and the "aggregate" uses a Cover Text from that document instead.' or 'If the "aggregate" contains multiple FDL documents that require the use of thier Cover Text, the author of the compilation may choose to use the Cover Text of any of the conflicting FDL documents. '?
You are allowed to release it under an exact version of GDL and only that version if you wish. You are allowed to release it under the GDL without specifying a version, then anyone can choose to use any version of the GDL published by FSF. Or you can release it under a particular version or any later version.
It's a matter of what trust you wish to place in the FSF. If you worry they will do something you don't like, release it under a particular version of the GDL, and include a note in an invarient section giving information on where one might look for your perspectives of future versions of the GDL along with a copy of your document under future versions of GDL if you approve of the changes.
Making a compilation and placing it under the GDL would make it clear to anyone who recieved that compilation that they have the right to distribute it further, while insuring that nobody repackages that compilation in such a way as to make that right non-obvious.
On the Windows side, I cannot even view the Word documents created with recent versions of Word, because I did not buy the latest version of the program. On the Linux side, I can view most documents but I do not have any good editor that can be used to modify the documents easily.
.RTF, I don't know if it necessarily can read .DOC files, but somehow I think it either can or will in a later release read Word 97 format.
:)
WordPad can read and write Word 6.0 documents, and possibly WordPad in Windows 2000 can read later versions. Our company has a policy of saving documents in Word 6.0 format.
On the Linux side, StarOffice can read Word files through Word 97, and is, at least in my case, able to open and modify 100% of them, although not all the formatting always comes in perfectly. WordPerfect 8 can read some Word files, but dies on others. AbiWord, which is open source, can read
Does anyone know what files KOffice can read? I haven't yet been able to get a version to compile on my box, but I'm assuming I've got to be missing SOMETHING, because I can't seem to compile ANY KDE apps my machine. (I get a "Your system fails at linking a small KDE application" during AutoConfig (./configure). I have all the KDE and Qt libraries and includes installed, and they were all compiled on the same compiler (egcs 2.95) so I have no idea what's wrong...if anyone has a clue, drop me an e-mail. thanks
My journal has hot
Despite the fact that Microsoft Word documents are able to be read and modified on most desktop platforms (Linux/xBSD, Windows, Mac OS, OS/2), these would be precluded from being referred to as "Transparent" versions by this clause. Also, what about
My journal has hot
What in the world are you thinking! Public Domain works are owned by NOBODY! There is no way in Heck they can be proprietarized. If GreedyPublisherInc puts out a new edition of "Alice in Wonderland" and slaps a copyright on it, the original text STILL EXISTS. There is no way that GreedyPublisherInc can stop you, I or AltruisticPublisherLLC from issuing their own copies.
Since there is absolutely no way anyone can remove public domain works from the public domain, I can only assume that your scheme is for the sole purpose to destroy commercial printings of uncopyrighted works. Because that would be the only result.
Remember, public domain works are owned by NOBODY. If you succeed in putting them under a copyleftist license, you will have REMOVED them from the status of the unowned, and made Guttenberg the COPYRIGHT HOLDER! What are you thinking!
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
What someone could do with a public work is to package it up in a compilation or something, without letting their customers know that the work is also available in the public domain, then seek damages against anyone who makes copies of the compilation.
If such a company sought damages they would be laughed out of court. Get real here! I could set up a photocopier in front of the Penguin offices and run off copies of "The Aeneid" all day long and there's nothing they could do to me.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
Does anybody else feel that all the programmers have become a bunch of lawyers? It just seems we spend more time today worrying about what code/documentation has what license that we spend actually designing and writing code.
Eric Anderson
One of its suggested clauses is allowing distribution only where you dont need an ISSN or ISBN. This even allows small scale paper distribution to occur.
Of course you can now use UCITA and sue people who lend a copy to a friend as well as requiring that you shred it when you have finished with it and keeping the right to go into their house and take it back if you want to
Alan
so does this mean that certain books will be able to be published and not need permission to be copied? (not copyrighted)
That's not the way I read it - although I'm still digesting the information. The work remains copyrighted - what you do have under the license is the right to make copies of the complete work and to create derivative works, while abiding by certain restrictions. There are requirements when making larger copy runs (i.e. > 100 copies) of these documents - I can see these applying in large software development groups for example - where you must also ensure that Cover texts are correctly added and that the publisher(s) and titles is/are visible and legible. There are also other responsibilities when modifying the document - I assume this is to avoid mis-attribution and possible 'viral' slanders introduced into the document by malicious authors later down the line. The License basically ensures that the integrity of the document is not compromised by alteration and that all alterations are clearly demarcated.
what about plagarism? will our teachers be able to spot these new uncopyrighted works?
I wouldn't worry. To copy one person is plagiarism, to copy two is research. :-)
Cheers
Toby Haynes
Anything I post is strictly my own thoughts and doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the opinions of IBM.
Well, speaking as an author, the primary thing you want to avoid is the very real threat that some bozo will attempt to "improve" your writing, and totally screw it up. This can be something as simple as using poor grammar and bad spelling, or something as nasty as being factually wrong on something Really Important.
:). Some people took the document and modified it to fit their own hacked versions of the software (which was good, although I was a bit peeved that they didn't talk to me/send me the revisions). However, from then on, I got hassled by people about this or that being wrong in the manual, or got questions about how to use this or that local feature. None of which I could do anything about, since I didn't know about the revisions, and had no way of contacting whoever did.
I had experience with this a long, long time ago. I published a manual for a piece of software. I didn't put any form of copyright on it (hey, I was innocent back then
Now that's I'm a professional writer, I'd be very reluctant to put anything out there that I'd allow to be modified without a license like this. The last thing I need is for a potential employer to go take a look at an altered version of the document, notice the crap that someone dumped into it, and attribute it to me.
Even then, I'd still be a bit leery of letting others hack my documents. I suppose that people
who release code under the GPL might feel the same thing, though. They're letting "their baby" go out into the world to back used and abused by others. I haven't really seen people losing control of their creations, though, so probably my fears are overstated. I've been thinking of releasing some documents of mine someday. Perhaps I will use the Gnu license to do that. If nothing else, it saves me from having to spell out what you can and can't do with the document myself.
Although I rather like the idea of documentation saying "Click on the f-ing icon in the top left corner and then set the damned slider to whatever you f-ing like". "To f-ing shutdown the f-ing computer, f-ing click on the f-ing arse-named Start button". Would make man pages a lot more interesting as well.
First, I'm wondering if this is really needed. There are certainly cases of authors putting copyrighted material out there electronically, free for the copying. I know O'Reilly did this with on of their books. Bruce Sterling also did this with The Hacker Crackdown.
The reason this concerns me is that if I were an author, I'd want to get a royalty for any copy of the work that gets sold for cash. It doesn't seem right that a publishing company could publish the book and pay nothing. (see below.) And given the two examples above, I don't think that selling a book to a publisher and getting royalies precludes free electronic distribution.
In other words, it seems to me to make sense to have a license that allowed free electronic distribution, but that required print distributors to come to an agreement with the authors regarding payment. (Obviously complicated if it has passed through many hands.)
My second comment is that I suspect that the motivation to "FDL" a document won't be nearly as strong as the motivation to "GPL" a piece of software. One of the reasons I think that the GPL works is that most GPL'd software was written for the authors. They write something they need, perhaps throwing in things for people to ask as a favor. Regardless, they end up with something they can use themselves. In other words, their work has value to them after they've completed it. Documentation, on the other hand, is pretty much useless to the author (in most cases) after its completion. Presumably the author knows everything in the document and thus no longer needs the document.
And that's the thing. The motivation to write an FDL'd document may be altruism, or the desire for community approval, but it won't be self-interest. On the other hand, the motivation to write a GPL'd piece of software certainly can be self-interest. I write a program because I want the program, first and foremost.
That's not to say that I'm opposed to other people using the FDL. If people want to, more power to them. But if I were going to write technical docs (which I have thought about doing) I'd want to retain copyright. I'd probably allow free unmodified distribution, but I'd want to have the ability to sell the work to a publisher as well. It doesn't seem that the FDL allows this, unless the publisher is real stupid.
The cake is a pie