Dual licensing of Org manual?

Dual licensing of Org manual?

[Bastien]

Hi,

is it possible to get a formal authorization from the FSF to
dual-license the Org manual with both GNU GPLv3 and GNU FDL 1.3?

Sebastien (cc) is maintaining the Org package for Debian and he
needs upstream version of Org manuals to be dual-licensed so that
Debian can distribute the Org manual under GNU GPL.

I see MH-E* is dual-licensing the manual so I expect this must
be somehow accepted.

Thanks,

* http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.mail.mh-e.announce/67

-- 
 Bastien

Re: Dual licensing of Org manual?

[Glenn Morris]

Bastien wrote:

> is it possible to get a formal authorization from the FSF to
> dual-license the Org manual with both GNU GPLv3 and GNU FDL 1.3?
>
> Sebastien (cc) is maintaining the Org package for Debian and he
> needs upstream version of Org manuals to be dual-licensed so that
> Debian can distribute the Org manual under GNU GPL.

Already asked and answered by rms

http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2008-06/msg00990.html

    We do not need a solution because we don't have a problem.
    Debian has a problem, and the solution for that is to change their
    policy.

    Please do not make this change; it goes against our licensing
    policies.

Irresistible force, immovable object, etc.

> I see MH-E* is dual-licensing the manual so I expect this must
> be somehow accepted.

True this is anomalous. rms has previously commented on this too

http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2008-06/msg00989.html

Later Bill Wohler reminded rms off-list that it had previously been
agreed (in some previous private discussion IIUC) for mh-e that dual
licensing was ok, so it stands.

Re: Dual licensing of Org manual?

[Bastien]

Glenn Morris <rgm@gnu.org> writes:

> Already asked and answered by rms

Okay, thanks for the pointer.

-- 
 Bastien

Re: Dual licensing of Org manual?

[Glenn Morris]

It's possible that the GNU position may have softened wrt invariant
sections and cover texts. GFDL with no invariant sections and no cover
texts is acceptable for Debian "free" IIUC.

http://www.gnu.org/prep/maintain/html_node/License-Notices-for-Documentation.html

  If your manual is not published by the FSF, and under 400 pages, you
  can omit both cover texts.

The Org manual is under 400 pages, but at ~ 250 pages it is pretty
substantial. I do not know if it is published.

Anyway, you need rms to answer this. If he doesn't respond anyway within
a week or so then ask him directly about the invariant sections and
cover texts if you want to.

Re: Dual licensing of Org manual?

[Bastien]

There is some hope then.  Thanks for following-up, appreciated.

Glenn Morris <rgm@gnu.org> writes:

> It's possible that the GNU position may have softened wrt invariant
> sections and cover texts. GFDL with no invariant sections and no cover
> texts is acceptable for Debian "free" IIUC.

Sebastien, do you confirm this?

> http://www.gnu.org/prep/maintain/html_node/License-Notices-for-Documentation.html
>
>   If your manual is not published by the FSF, and under 400 pages, you
>   can omit both cover texts.
>
> The Org manual is under 400 pages, but at ~ 250 pages it is pretty
> substantial. I do not know if it is published.

It has been published by Network-Theory:
  http://www.network-theory.co.uk/org/manual/

but AFAIK it has not been published by the FSF.

> Anyway, you need rms to answer this. If he doesn't respond anyway within
> a week or so then ask him directly about the invariant sections and
> cover texts if you want to.

I'll first wait for Sebastien's answer then ping RMS about this.

Thanks!

-- 
 Bastien

Re: Dual licensing of Org manual?

[Sébastien Delafond]

On Dec/14, Bastien wrote:
> > It's possible that the GNU position may have softened wrt
> > invariant sections and cover texts. GFDL with no invariant
> > sections and no cover texts is acceptable for Debian "free" IIUC.
> 
> Sebastien, do you confirm this?

that is correct, per http://www.debian.org/vote/2006/vote_001.

Cheers,

--Seb

Re: Dual licensing of Org manual?

[Bastien]

Hi Richard, 

I changed the copyright notice of the Org manual to this:

  Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document
  under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.3 or
  any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no
  Invariant Sections and no Cover Texts.

Glenn Morris <rgm@gnu.org> writes:

> http://www.gnu.org/prep/maintain/html_node/License-Notices-for-Documentation.html

If I read the webpage above correctly, I assume it is fine to not have
cover texts because (1) the manual is not published by the FSF and (2)
the manual is less than 400 pages.

Let me know if you disagree and if I should update the copyright licence
again.

-- 
 Bastien

Re: Dual licensing of Org manual?

[Richard Stallman]

    is it possible to get a formal authorization from the FSF to
    dual-license the Org manual with both GNU GPLv3 and GNU FDL 1.3?

No.

Debian and the GNU Project have some disagreements.  We want them to
stop recommending nonfree software, which is a practice we consider
unethical.  They call some aspects of the GNU FDL nonfree, which we
consider a mistaken judgment.

We are negotiating with them about these issues.

In the mean time, we will not make license changes to cater to Debian.
Please don't change anything about the Org manual licensing.

-- 
Dr Richard Stallman
President, Free Software Foundation
51 Franklin St
Boston MA 02110
USA
www.fsf.org  www.gnu.org
Skype: No way! That's nonfree (freedom-denying) software.
  Use Ekiga or an ordinary phone call

Re: Dual licensing of Org manual?

[Bastien]

Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> writes:

> Please don't change anything about the Org manual licensing.

Please see my other message in this thread.

The notice in version 7.9.2 of the Org manual* says:

   Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document
   under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.3 or
   any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no
   Invariant Sections, with the Front-Cover texts being “A GNU Manual,”
   and with the Back-Cover Texts as in (a) below.  A copy of the license
   is included in the section entitled “GNU Free Documentation License.”

   (a) The FSF’s Back-Cover Text is: “You have the freedom to copy and
   modify this GNU manual. Buying copies from the FSF supports it in
   developing GNU and promoting software freedom.”

   This document is part of a collection distributed under the GNU Free
   Documentation License. If you want to distribute this document
   separately from the collection, you can do so by adding a copy of the
   license to the document, as described in section 6 of the license.

Note that

(1) it's already mentioned "no Invariant Sections";

(2) the note about the Back-Cover Texts as in (a) is irrelevant because
    the FSF does not sell the Org manual;

(3) http://www.gnu.org/prep/maintain/html_node/License-Notices-for-Documentation.html
    says:

       If your manual is not published by the FSF, and under 400 pages,
       you can omit both cover texts.

    I thought it applied to the Org manual so allowed myself to remove
    the Cover Texts and the last paragraph of the notice.

Let me know what should be fixed.

Thanks,

* See http://orgmode.org/cgit.cgi/org-mode.git/plain/doc/org.texi?h=maint&id=df0991
   
-- 
 Bastien

Re: Dual licensing of Org manual?

[Stephen J. Turnbull]

Bastien writes:
 > Hi Richard, 
 > 
 > I changed the copyright notice of the Org manual to this:
 > 
 >   Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document
 >   under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.3 or
 >   any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no
 >   Invariant Sections and no Cover Texts.

Is this the correct wording?  I parse that as "you may not add
Invariant Sections or Cover Texts", which conflicts with the FDL
itself.  I would expect phrasing like "there are no Invariant Sections
or Cover Texts for this document."

Re: Dual licensing of Org manual?

[Glenn Morris]

Bastien wrote:

> The notice in version 7.9.2 of the Org manual* says:
[...]
>    A copy of the license is included in the section entitled "GNU Free
>    Documentation License."

This was untrue (there was no such section). I added one.

>    This document is part of a collection distributed under the GNU Free
>    Documentation License. If you want to distribute this document
>    separately from the collection, you can do so by adding a copy of the
>    license to the document, as described in section 6 of the license.

This was logially inconsistent with the above. I removed it.


(I imagine that since your manual is published as a book by _someone_,
the FSF would like you to include the cover texts, the GNU GPL, and
their "standard invariant section which explains the importance of free
documentation". After all, you're publishing the book so that people
read it, and the FSF wants these statements included so that people are
exposed to them. But what I imagine is irrelevant, since rms will tell
us.)

Re: Dual licensing of Org manual?

[Bastien]

"Stephen J. Turnbull" <stephen@xemacs.org> writes:

> I would expect phrasing like "there are no Invariant Sections
> or Cover Texts for this document."

Indeed, much clearer, I will make this change.

Thanks,

-- 
 Bastien

Re: Dual licensing of Org manual?

[Richard Stallman]

Please revert your change.  The licensing of this manual is an FSF decision
and we have not authorized a change.

-- 
Dr Richard Stallman
President, Free Software Foundation
51 Franklin St
Boston MA 02110
USA
www.fsf.org  www.gnu.org
Skype: No way! That's nonfree (freedom-denying) software.
  Use Ekiga or an ordinary phone call

Re: Dual licensing of Org manual?

[Bastien]

Hi Glenn,

Glenn Morris <rgm@gnu.org> writes:

> Bastien wrote:
>
>> The notice in version 7.9.2 of the Org manual* says:
> [...]
>>    A copy of the license is included in the section entitled "GNU Free
>>    Documentation License."
>
> This was untrue (there was no such section). I added one.

Thanks.  Also done for org.texi and orgguide.texi in our git repo.

>>    This document is part of a collection distributed under the GNU Free
>>    Documentation License. If you want to distribute this document
>>    separately from the collection, you can do so by adding a copy of the
>>    license to the document, as described in section 6 of the license.
>
> This was logially inconsistent with the above. I removed it.

Indeed, thanks.

-- 
 Bastien

Re: Dual licensing of Org manual?

[Bastien]

Glenn Morris <rgm@gnu.org> writes:

>>    This document is part of a collection distributed under the GNU Free
>>    Documentation License. If you want to distribute this document
>>    separately from the collection, you can do so by adding a copy of the
>>    license to the document, as described in section 6 of the license.
>
> This was logially inconsistent with the above. I removed it.

I removed the sentence in the Back-Cover Text suggesting to buy a copy
of the Org manual from the FSF.  It was inconsistent with the reality
out there, since The FSF does not sell such copies.

Note that the Org manual as published by Network-Theory includes this
sentence in their back-cover, advertizing something that cannot be done.

-- 
 Bastien

Re: Dual licensing of Org manual?

[Bastien]

Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> writes:

> Please revert your change.  The licensing of this manual is an FSF decision
> and we have not authorized a change.

Just for the sake of clarity: I was trying to *fix* the copyright
notice with regard to what I understand from this link:

  http://www.gnu.org/prep/maintain/html_node/License-Notices-for-Documentation.html

In particular, this sentence is ambiguous:

  "If your manual is not published by the FSF, and under 400 pages, you
  can omit both cover texts."

I read it as 

  "If the FSF does not sell paperback copies of your manual, and if your
  manual is under 400 pages, you can omit both cover texts."

Which was precisely the case for the Org manual.

IIUC this should be

  "If the FSF is not the author of your manual, and if your manual is
  under 400 pages, you can omit both cover texts."

Can someone fix this?

-- 
 Bastien

Re: Dual licensing of Org manual?

[Richard Stallman]

      "If the FSF is not the author of your manual, and if your manual is
      under 400 pages, you can omit both cover texts."

It should say, "If the FSF is the copyright holder, ask the FSF what
to do."  I will fix that, and also think about what to do in this case.

-- 
Dr Richard Stallman
President, Free Software Foundation
51 Franklin St
Boston MA 02110
USA
www.fsf.org  www.gnu.org
Skype: No way! That's nonfree (freedom-denying) software.
  Use Ekiga or an ordinary phone call

Re: Dual licensing of Org manual?

[Bastien]

Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> writes:

>       "If the FSF is not the author of your manual, and if your manual is
>       under 400 pages, you can omit both cover texts."
>
> It should say, "If the FSF is the copyright holder, ask the FSF what
> to do."  I will fix that, and also think about what to do in this case.

Thanks!

-- 
 Bastien

Re: Dual licensing of Org manual?

[Bill Wohler]

Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> writes:

>       "If the FSF is not the author of your manual, and if your manual is
>       under 400 pages, you can omit both cover texts."
>
> It should say, "If the FSF is the copyright holder, ask the FSF what
> to do."  I will fix that, and also think about what to do in this case.

Hi Richard,

If it is helpful, the MH-E manual is under 400 pages and carries a dual
license. This is what Eben came up with back in 1995, I think.

    Copyright © 1995, 2001-2003, 2005-2012 Free Software Foundation, Inc.

    Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this
    document under the terms of either: 

    a. the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.3 or any later version
       published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant
       Sections, with the Front-Cover texts being “A GNU Manual,” and with
       the Back-Cover Texts as in (a) below. A copy of the license is
       included in the section entitled “GNU Free Documentation License.”

       (a) The FSF's Back-Cover Text is: “You have the freedom to copy and
       modify this GNU manual. Buying copies from the FSF supports it in
       developing GNU and promoting software freedom.”

    b. the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software
       Foundation; either version 3, or (at your option) any later version.
       A copy of the license is included in the section entitled “GNU
       General Public License.”

-- 
Bill Wohler <wohler@newt.com> aka <Bill.Wohler@nasa.gov>
http://www.newt.com/wohler/
GnuPG ID:610BD9AD

Re: Dual licensing of Org manual?

[Richard Stallman]

Thanks, but I'm not looking for a way to do something like this for
other manuals unless it is somehow _needed_.  So far, I see no need.

-- 
Dr Richard Stallman
President, Free Software Foundation
51 Franklin St
Boston MA 02110
USA
www.fsf.org  www.gnu.org
Skype: No way! That's nonfree (freedom-denying) software.
  Use Ekiga or an ordinary phone call

Re: Dual licensing of Org manual?

[Bastien]

Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> writes:

> Thanks, but I'm not looking for a way to do something like this for
> other manuals unless it is somehow _needed_.

Just out of curiosity, was it needed for the MH-E manual?
If so, what was the need?

Thanks,

-- 
 Bastien

Re: Dual licensing of Org manual?

[Bill Wohler]

The dual license is required so that the MH-E Manual can be distributed
with Debian.

Bastien <bzg@gnu.org> wrote:

> Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> writes:
> 
> > Thanks, but I'm not looking for a way to do something like this for
> > other manuals unless it is somehow _needed_.
> 
> Just out of curiosity, was it needed for the MH-E manual?
> If so, what was the need?
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> -- 
>  Bastien

-- 
Bill Wohler <wohler@newt.com> aka <Bill.Wohler@nasa.gov>
http://www.newt.com/wohler/
GnuPG ID:610BD9AD

Re: Dual licensing of Org manual?

[Bastien]

Bill Wohler <wohler@newt.com> writes:

> The dual license is required so that the MH-E Manual can be distributed
> with Debian.

So, we have exactly the same need for the Org manual.

My understanding is that this particular need is not regarded
as such by Richard.

-- 
 Bastien

Re: Dual licensing of Org manual?

[Richard Stallman]

    Just out of curiosity, was it needed for the MH-E manual?
    If so, what was the need?

I don't know how this decision was made, but I doubt there was a real
need.  I think it was some sort of confusion.  It makes no sense
to undo it now, but we can avoid other similar confusions from now on.

-- 
Dr Richard Stallman
President, Free Software Foundation
51 Franklin St
Boston MA 02110
USA
www.fsf.org  www.gnu.org
Skype: No way! That's nonfree (freedom-denying) software.
  Use Ekiga or an ordinary phone call

Re: Dual licensing of Org manual?

[Richard Stallman]

    The dual license is required so that the MH-E Manual can be distributed
    with Debian.

That is not a "need" as far as we are concerned.  I don't recall what
happened in the case of MH-E, but we should not make any license
changes for this reason.

-- 
Dr Richard Stallman
President, Free Software Foundation
51 Franklin St
Boston MA 02110
USA
www.fsf.org  www.gnu.org
Skype: No way! That's nonfree (freedom-denying) software.
  Use Ekiga or an ordinary phone call