From: "Robert J. Chassell" <bob@rattlesnake.com>
Cc: kfogel@red-bean.com, xemacs-beta@xemacs.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org
Subject: Re: Permission to use portions of the recent GNU Emacs Manual
Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2004 20:46:38 +0000 (UTC) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <m1Cdac2-0004R2C@rattlesnake.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <x5hdmr2spw.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> (message from David Kastrup on Sun, 12 Dec 2004 20:59:23 +0100)
> > To enable the FSF to be a `do what we do organization' rather than a
> > `don't do what we do, do what we say' organization.
>
> a) what precise purpose does the GFDL achieve for the GNU Emacs manual
> that is not achieved by it being under the GPL (your explanation is
> mostly about the contrast to Public Domain and/or BSD)?
>
> To be a `do what we do, not a do what we say' organization.
How does this hand-waving address the difference between GPL and GFDL?
The GFDL is designed to enable commercial publishers who print on
paper or other material entity to survive. The GPL is not.
The idea is that software development will be paid for by hardware
companies, by trade associations, by governments, by universities, and
by programmers whose material income does come from the project at
hand. In other words, cost recovery for someone writing code is, or
should be, different than cost recovery for someone getting attention
for and printing a book written by another.
At the moment, proprietary software companies and many documentation
publishers depend on the same method of cost recovery, which is to say
monopoly pricing enforced (ultimately, not most of the time) by
police. Proprietary restrictions hinder both software creation and
documentation writing.
That is why I have said so often that the purpose of the GFDL is to
provide an alternative to a `Creative Commons license with a
commercial restriction' or similar license.
As for a single license: I personally would like to see one rather
than two or many, but I am not sure that is possible. Laws are
written mostly by lawyers. Businesses that use software are often run
by people who know nothing about software (and the business may have
nothing to do with software except to use it as a tool -- it may train
horses or something like that). Perhaps one license is possible.
Then again, perhaps not.
Incidentally, a great advantages of both the GPL and the GFDL is that
they can be read, perhaps with difficulty, by non-lawyers, and mean
more or less the same thing to them as to lawyers. (I am told that
the main legality a non-lawyer like me needs to learn is that
`derivative works' are defined by judges, most of whom know nothing
about software. The meaning of `derivative work' cannot be specified
in a license.) Readability means that programmers who do not wish to
learn much law can grok the major interfaces between them and the
wider world.
Imagine if a programmer could not understand these interfaces without
becoming a different person -- imagine if a programmer were in the
same position as a typical politician, the one being unable to
understand the interface, the other being unable to understand the
software. It is hard enough right now to deal with these issues:
doubtless you have noticed that almost all discussion by programmers
is addressed to programmers' issues rather than to non-programmers'
issues. Imagine it were worse.
--
Robert J. Chassell
bob@rattlesnake.com GnuPG Key ID: 004B4AC8
http://www.rattlesnake.com http://www.teak.cc
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2004-12-12 20:46 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 76+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2004-12-09 22:28 Permission to use portions of the recent GNU Emacs Manual Ben Wing
2004-12-10 23:14 ` Richard Stallman
2004-12-11 0:59 ` Ben Wing
2004-12-11 1:06 ` Miles Bader
2004-12-11 10:27 ` Alan Mackenzie
2004-12-11 18:19 ` Eli Zaretskii
2004-12-11 20:43 ` David Kastrup
2004-12-11 19:02 ` Stefan Monnier
2004-12-12 0:26 ` Karl Fogel
2004-12-12 8:57 ` David Kastrup
2004-12-12 16:56 ` Brian Palmer
2004-12-12 13:31 ` Matthew Mundell
2004-12-12 13:40 ` David Kastrup
2004-12-12 2:03 ` Robert J. Chassell
2004-12-12 4:59 ` Karl Fogel
[not found] ` <m1CdWGG-0004R2C@rattlesnake.com>
2004-12-12 17:43 ` David Kastrup
2004-12-12 18:39 ` Florian Weimer
2004-12-12 19:24 ` David Kastrup
2004-12-12 19:49 ` Florian Weimer
2004-12-12 19:43 ` Robert J. Chassell
2004-12-12 19:59 ` David Kastrup
2004-12-12 20:46 ` Robert J. Chassell [this message]
2004-12-12 21:00 ` Andy Piper
2004-12-13 1:59 ` Robert J. Chassell
2004-12-13 2:23 ` David Kastrup
2004-12-13 12:34 ` Thien-Thi Nguyen
2004-12-13 16:53 ` Robert J. Chassell
2004-12-15 14:23 ` Stephen J. Turnbull
2004-12-15 19:14 ` Robert J. Chassell
2004-12-15 20:19 ` David Kastrup
2004-12-15 23:32 ` Robert J. Chassell
2004-12-17 5:36 ` Stephen J. Turnbull
2004-12-15 23:20 ` Richard Stallman
2004-12-16 10:58 ` David Kastrup
2004-12-16 12:18 ` Eli Zaretskii
2004-12-16 12:29 ` Kim F. Storm
2004-12-17 0:53 ` Richard Stallman
2004-12-18 10:20 ` Ben Wing
2004-12-18 23:32 ` Miles Bader
2004-12-19 6:31 ` Ben Wing
2004-12-19 6:32 ` Ben Wing
2004-12-19 13:54 ` Robert J. Chassell
2004-12-19 15:40 ` David Kastrup
2004-12-19 16:10 ` Paul Pogonyshev
2004-12-19 21:32 ` David Kastrup
2004-12-19 23:48 ` Paul Pogonyshev
2004-12-20 8:07 ` David Kastrup
2004-12-20 14:05 ` Robert J. Chassell
2004-12-20 0:19 ` Ben Wing
2004-12-20 7:20 ` David Kastrup
2004-12-20 10:58 ` Stephen J. Turnbull
2004-12-20 10:56 ` Richard Stallman
2004-12-20 12:47 ` David Kastrup
2004-12-17 1:32 ` Stephen J. Turnbull
2004-12-12 4:39 ` Richard Stallman
2004-12-12 6:16 ` Stefan Monnier
2004-12-12 21:28 ` Eli Zaretskii
2004-12-12 21:43 ` David Kastrup
2004-12-13 2:22 ` Robert J. Chassell
2004-12-13 6:48 ` Brian Palmer
2004-12-13 10:05 ` David Kastrup
2004-12-13 17:44 ` Bruce Stephens
2004-12-14 13:09 ` Stephen J. Turnbull
2004-12-14 2:56 ` Karl Fogel
2004-12-14 14:16 ` Robert J. Chassell
2004-12-13 4:23 ` Dhruva
2004-12-13 19:51 ` Richard Stallman
2004-12-13 20:03 ` David Kastrup
2004-12-14 10:03 ` Per Abrahamsen
2004-12-14 10:14 ` David Kastrup
2004-12-14 14:09 ` Robert J. Chassell
2004-12-14 14:25 ` David Kastrup
2004-12-14 20:19 ` Robert J. Chassell
2004-12-14 22:09 ` David Kastrup
2004-12-15 0:12 ` Robert J. Chassell
2004-12-15 8:03 ` Per Abrahamsen
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
List information: https://www.gnu.org/software/emacs/
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=m1Cdac2-0004R2C@rattlesnake.com \
--to=bob@rattlesnake.com \
--cc=emacs-devel@gnu.org \
--cc=kfogel@red-bean.com \
--cc=xemacs-beta@xemacs.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
Code repositories for project(s) associated with this public inbox
https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/emacs.git
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).