From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Karl Fogel Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel,gmane.emacs.xemacs.beta Subject: Re: Permission to use portions of the recent GNU Emacs Manual Date: 11 Dec 2004 22:59:46 -0600 Message-ID: <87llc49kn1.fsf@floss.red-bean.com> References: Reply-To: kfogel@red-bean.com NNTP-Posting-Host: deer.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1102827615 10517 80.91.229.6 (12 Dec 2004 05:00:15 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2004 05:00:15 +0000 (UTC) Cc: xemacs-beta@xemacs.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sun Dec 12 06:00:08 2004 Return-path: Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by deer.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1CdLq3-00062j-00 for ; Sun, 12 Dec 2004 06:00:07 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CdM05-0006ma-IU for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 12 Dec 2004 00:10:29 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.33) id 1CdLzx-0006m3-Kt for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 12 Dec 2004 00:10:21 -0500 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.33) id 1CdLzu-0006lM-JL for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 12 Dec 2004 00:10:20 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CdLzu-0006lJ-GA for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 12 Dec 2004 00:10:18 -0500 Original-Received: from [207.115.63.58] (helo=pimout7-ext.prodigy.net) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1CdLpi-0005EX-Dt for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 11 Dec 2004 23:59:46 -0500 Original-Received: from floss.red-bean.com (adsl-66-73-172-37.dsl.chcgil.ameritech.net [66.73.172.37]) by pimout7-ext.prodigy.net (8.12.10 milter /8.12.10) with ESMTP id iBC4xbKa210628; Sat, 11 Dec 2004 23:59:45 -0500 Original-Received: from kfogel by floss.red-bean.com with local (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 1CdLpi-0001eN-00; Sat, 11 Dec 2004 22:59:46 -0600 Original-To: bob@rattlesnake.com Emacs: ... it's not just a way of life, it's a text editor! In-Reply-To: Original-Lines: 58 User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.3.50 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:31021 gmane.emacs.xemacs.beta:17413 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel:31021 "Robert J. Chassell" writes: > The prime purpose of the GFDL is to encourage more publishers to > provide commercial, free documentation. > > Publishers have told me that they are afraid that without some kind of > legal obligation to publish a few words on the front and back covers > they will be ripped off by free riders. Were they to invest in > gathering people's attention, others would benefit. So they did not > invest in providing commercial, free documentation. > > The strategy may be wrong. Businesses may not compete with one > another. They may not care whether they lose revenue to free riders > and others. But I do not think so. (Indeed, most of the free works I > see nowadays in commercial publications are under more restrictive > `Creative Commons' licenses, so there is an argument that the GFDL is > not restrictive enough.) > > From my knowledge, many businessmen fear that other businessmen will > compete, one way or the other. For example, a long time ago Tim > O'Reilly told me that he believed that powerful people in Macmillan > hoped to destroy his publishing house before it became well > established. Perhaps he was delusional. Or perhaps he was correct. > I think he was more likely correct than wrong. In any event, others > have said the same. If O'Reilly was worried about this at one point, they've loosened up considerably. They're now happily publishing books under considerably *less* restrictive [than the GFDL] Creative Commons licenses -- licenses that do not have, for example, front- and back-cover requirements, or invariant portion requirements. > The GFDL is designed to reduce the benefits to free riders. That is > its prime purpose. (It has secondary purposes, too, like enabling > people to write personal introductions that legally will remain > invariant.) As I said, there is short term evidence that the GFDL is > insufficiently restrictive; but I do not see how it could be made more > restrictive and still be free in any meaningful sense. (Thanks for the summary of the GFDL's purposes -- very helpful!) An important question remains: Why is attractiveness to commercial publishers, or reducing benefits to free riders, important for the Emacs manual? If the Emacs manual were picked up by free riders, that would be fine with us, wouldn't it? (Is it that the FSF sells manuals? If so, how many copies do they sell anyway, and how much would that number be likely to be affected? Most people who contribute to the manual are not doing it to raise money for the FSF. They're doing it to contribute to Emacs. When I want to contribute to the FSF, I write a check. When I want to contribute to Emacs, I write code or docs.) So what exactly is the GFDL protecting, in the specific case of the Emacs manual? Are we really worried about some portion of the manual being used in a screed in support of software patents or something?