Re: Permission to use portions of the recent GNU Emacs Manual

... My issue is not with the GFDL per se. My issue is that it is not GPL-compatible, yet we use it for something that forms an integrated and tightly coupled part of Emacs and evolves with it. And that defeats the "Public" in GPL since it requires the copyright holder for normal maintenance work of derived versions. I do not understand you. First, the GFDL is not for code. Second, anyone can change the body of a GFDL's work. This means that you can modify code under the GNU GPL and then document your modification. And you may distribute the result, attempting to charge if you wish for both code and documentation. Or, of course, you may give away both. You have the freedom. The copyright holder is irrelevant. The only parts you may not legally change are parts that do not deal with the subject. This kind of invariance makes sense. The invariance means either that an author wrote something about the document, like why he wrote the first draft, or that an initial publisher used `non-recoverable or rivalrous resources'. The latter is the key new feature: it is designed to restrict other publishers free riding, but not to stop them from manufacturing and distributing copies of the work. Previously, invariant sections were an ad hoc part of documentation licenses. True, they usually were not aimed at encouraging a publisher (using non-recoverable or rivalrous resources) a little bit, but without legally excluding all other publishers as the "Creative Commons license with commercial restriction" does. That is the main new feature; and it could have been implemented in previous documentation licenses. Generally, people and organizations charge if they lose resources for each item distributed and do not treat the used resources as a `lost leader'. Thus, book publishers give away some books as lost leaders in order to gather attention and charge for the rest. But if they give away resources and never recover them, they will go broke if a book is successful. For the past half millenium, in Europe and in derived countries like the US, the method for recovering resources involved in books has been to prevent others from legally charging for copies that they produce. If necessary, police enforce this ban. The GFDL is different. It does not create a ban, but puts up a barrier (that is what the front and back cover text requirement is about). The goal is that the barrier be somewhat high, but not too high. In contrast, the "Creative Commons license with commercial restriction" and similar licenses put up a ban. Please explain further how GFDL actions defeat the "Public" in GPL, especially since invariant sections have existed in the licenses for past documentation. -- Robert J. Chassell bob(a)rattlesnake.com GnuPG Key ID: 004B4AC8 http://www.rattlesnake.com http://www.teak.cc