Mailing List Archive

On Fri, 18 Feb 2000, IIDA Yosiaki wrote:

> I see GPH is covered by GNU GPL. GNU GPL is specially
> designed for program, not for document.

Right, however because this handbook is close related to some
software, using the GPH is not that a bad idea. There are quite a
couple of books out, which use the GPL.

> Why isn't it covered by permission notice like one in
> other manuals published by FSF?

RMS is working on a documenation license however he suggested to use
the GPL for the handbook.

> If you get bored writing permission notice, you may want
> to apply Open Publication License, found in:
> http://opencontent.org/openpub/

Some of the optional features makes this not a good choice.

Regarding your translation, we should ask RMS. Can you please do this
and CC me and Mike <jashley@acm.org>.


Werner

Werner Koch <wk@gnupg.org> writes:
>Right, however because this handbook is close related to some
>software, using the GPH is not that a bad idea. There are quite a
>couple of books out, which use the GPL.

I don't get it.
I do see many books which include copy of GNU GPL. But
just including GPL in a book does not imply the whole book
is using GNU GPL.
For example, GNU Emacs User Manual and GNU Emacs Lisp
Reference Manual both are close related to GNU Emacs and
they both include a section which is a copy of GNU GPL. But
they are not using GNU GPL to protect themselves. They have
their own permission notices, so that I am permitted to
translate them into Japanese.

As far as I understand, translating into another natural
language is out of range covered by GNU GPL.

>RMS is working on a documenation license however he suggested to use
>the GPL for the handbook.
...

I see.

>Regarding your translation, we should ask RMS. Can you please do this
>and CC me and Mike <jashley@acm.org>.

OK. I will.
--
iida

On Mon, 21 Feb 2000, IIDA Yosiaki wrote:

> I do see many books which include copy of GNU GPL. But

No, I don't mean that. IIRC, there are DEbian books, GNOME and GTK
books entirely under the GPL. Karl Fogel's CVS book has many
chapters which fall under the GPL.

> As far as I understand, translating into another natural
> language is out of range covered by GNU GPL.

As long as you adhere to the GPL, you can do what you want with it.
This includes translations of course. Compare this to a GPLed program
written in C which you want to translate to Scheme - no problem.


Werner

Werner Koch <wk@gnupg.org> writes:
>As long as you adhere to the GPL, you can do what you want with it.
>This includes translations of course. Compare this to a GPLed program
>written in C which you want to translate to Scheme - no problem.

If you you mean copyleft, not GNU GPL, then I understand.
--
iida

On Mon, 21 Feb 2000, IIDA Yosiaki wrote:

> If you you mean copyleft, not GNU GPL, then I understand.

Hmm, where is the difference? The GPL is one possible implementation
of a copyleft style license.

Which point of the GPL does make you think it is not appropriate for
documentation?

Werner

Werner Koch <wk@gnupg.org> writes:
>The GPL is one possible implementation of a copyleft style license.

But not the only.

>Hmm, where is the difference?

Permission notices on other FSF maunals are also
implementations of copyleft. They are tailored for
documentation.

>Which point of the GPL does make you think it is not appropriate for
>documentation?

Before I answer this question, I should say this:
It is up to you, and you have right to dicide whether
you cover your documentation with GNU GPL or not.
What I really want to say is that it would be better
applying permission notice than applying GNU GPL to
documentation.


Documentation has neither object code nor executable.
So, the 3rd article of GNU GPL has no sense.

GNU GPL reads:
# Activities other than copying, distribution and
#modification are not covered by this License; they are
#outside its scope.
while,
* Free documentation should also be copied and distributed
by paper, without machine-readable source. Permission
notices on manuals published by FSF explicitly grant this
act.
* Free documentation should also be translated into
another natural language. Most of the permission notices on
manuals published by FSF grant this act.


Technically, I agree that there are no difference between
program, data and documentation, from the view of collection
of bits. But I see some meaning in that GNU GPL uses the
word "Program" and that the manual published by FSF is not
covered by GNU GPL. And I also see that the permission
notices on those manuals are very well sophisticated.
--
iida

On Mon, 21 Feb 2000, IIDA Yosiaki wrote:

> What I really want to say is that it would be better
> applying permission notice than applying GNU GPL to
> documentation.

That is up to the FSF - can't change it.

> Documentation has neither object code nor executable.
> So, the 3rd article of GNU GPL has no sense.

Hmmm, you have to write it using the Docbook language, run Jade or
other tools over it, and run a formatter backend. Looks pretty much
like the usual way programs are created.

> * Free documentation should also be copied and distributed
> by paper, without machine-readable source. Permission
> notices on manuals published by FSF explicitly grant this

I think that the machine-readable source should accompany every
printed version - it is much easier to search for things using a
machine.


Werner

Tschues!

Werner Koch <wk@gnupg.org> writes:
>>What I really want to say is that it would be better
>>applying permission notice than applying GNU GPL to
>>documentation.
>That is up to the FSF - can't change it.

Since you are the author of GPH, you can change copying
condition policy, even after you covered GPH by GNU GPL
published by FSF.

>Hmmm, you have to write it using the Docbook language, run Jade or

That is what I mean I know there is no difference between
data and documentation. As I might write before, I even
wrote my own M4 macros to support SGML output. I was lucky
because those macros seems to be a pure program, without
documentation. People can and do execute this M4 macro, but
almost all people don't need to read it, while people just
read documentation, and don't execute it.

>other tools over it, and run a formatter backend. Looks pretty much
>like the usual way programs are created.

Yes, it does look. But what do you want people to do with
your handbook? I see you want people read it. You also want
people run and execute it, in order to make people read it.
Of cource you allow people execute it, but this seems not
your main intension.

I see that which of GNU GPL or permission notices on
manuals you want to apply depends on what you want people to
do which of reading or running. If you want people to run
it, you use GNU GPL. If you want people just read it, you
probably don't want to use GNU GPL, though it is possible
and you have right to do so.

You also want to consider which help people much, allowing
people to redistribute paper copy without machine-readable
source, or allowing people to redistribute paper copy always
with machine-readable source.
For program, a copy without machine-readable source is not
so useful. That is why GNU GPL prohibit this. For
documentation, a copy may be useful even without machine-
readable source.

There are mixtures of program and documentation, such as
DEK's WEB format, which may need another kind of license,
when you want them copylefted. But this is not what I am
talking at this moment.

>I think that the machine-readable source should accompany every
>printed version[...]

Hmm, as a matter of fact, I was planning to publish paper
copy of my translation from a publisher in Japan, since I
wanted people to read the Japanese translation. Do I have
to accompany machine-readable source with it?

>[...]it is much easier to search for things using a
>machine.

Absolutely yes.
A paper copy of document with machine-readable source
helps more than without.

Thanks.
--
iida

On Tue, 22 Feb 2000, IIDA Yosiaki wrote:

> Since you are the author of GPH, you can change copying
> condition policy, even after you covered GPH by GNU GPL
> published by FSF.

Mike is the author of the GPH and iirc he assigned the copyright to
the FSF. After this he cannot change it anymore. Okay, he can fork
and continue to work on the version prior to the assignment where
he of course can change the terms as he like (after notifying the FSF
and waitoing 30 days).

> Hmm, as a matter of fact, I was planning to publish paper
> copy of my translation from a publisher in Japan, since I
> wanted people to read the Japanese translation. Do I have
> to accompany machine-readable source with it?

You have to promise to make it available for at least 3(?) years.
Today this is simple, simply put a notice in it, where the
source can be found (ftp.gnupg.org/pub/gcrypt/gph)


Werner

Werner Koch <wk@gnupg.org> writes:
>Mike is the author of the GPH and iirc he assigned the copyright to
>the FSF. After this he cannot change it anymore. Okay, he can fork

Oh, it explains a lot! Now I understand. Thank you.

>You have to promise to make it available for at least 3(?) years.
>Today this is simple, simply put a notice in it, where the
>source can be found (ftp.gnupg.org/pub/gcrypt/gph)

I take that as Yes, I can publish paper copy.
--
iida

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

IIDA,

On Tue, 22 Feb 2000, Werner Koch wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Feb 2000, IIDA Yosiaki wrote:
>
> > Since you are the author of GPH, you can change copying
> > condition policy, even after you covered GPH by GNU GPL
> > published by FSF.
>
> Mike is the author of the GPH and iirc he assigned the copyright to
> the FSF. After this he cannot change it anymore. Okay, he can fork
> and continue to work on the version prior to the assignment where
> he of course can change the terms as he like (after notifying the FSF
> and waitoing 30 days).

Yes, the copyright has been assigned to the FSF. To clarify, I am the
only one who has this right to fork the manual as Werner described.

The manual is licensed under the GPL, because it was the best choice at
the time. After dissecting several licenses, including the documentation
license that the FSF is composing, I was not happy with any of them.
Although imperfect, the GPL was the best of the group.

> > Hmm, as a matter of fact, I was planning to publish paper
> > copy of my translation from a publisher in Japan, since I
> > wanted people to read the Japanese translation. Do I have
> > to accompany machine-readable source with it?

According to my understanding of the GPL, modifications to the manual
such as adding new material are covered by the GPL. Translations
are also covered by the GPL. So you must distribute your translation
under the GPL. As Werner said, you could do this by giving a pointer
to an ftp site giving a machine-readable version of the manual.

Personally, I would like to see your translation contributed back
to the GnuPG project so that we can add it to the Spanish and German
translations. You are of course not required to do this, but I would
appreciate it.

Mike

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.1 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org

iEYEARECAAYFAjizO/8ACgkQBwMqlokEyOJXRgCeI0OeB2vSnkmp2zZ3VBssPILv
YUcAn3XF+vaZhMyM4pFNs0cyuF9FsSQW
=Ib7g
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

El mar, 22 de feb de 2000, a las 08:46:36 -0500, J. Michael Ashley dijo:
>
> According to my understanding of the GPL, modifications to the manual
> such as adding new material are covered by the GPL. Translations
> are also covered by the GPL. So you must distribute your translation
> under the GPL. As Werner said, you could do this by giving a pointer
> to an ftp site giving a machine-readable version of the manual.

Talking about translations, there are translations of the GPL at gnu.org
for various languages, but these translations are just that,
translations, not legal documents.

Therefore, a translated document must point to the English language GPL,
and may add a pointer to the corresponding translation of the GPL,
making clear it is just a translation of the legal doc.

...or so I believe.


--
Horacio Anno MMDCCLIII aUC
homega@ciberia.es Valencia - ESPAÑA
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Key fingerprint = F4EE AE5E 2F01 0DB3 62F2 A9F4 AD31 7093 4233 7AE6