Copyright question

Copyright question

[Carsten Dominik]

Hi,

I would like to switch the copyright of the Org-mode manual to GPL.
Currently it is GFDL, with front/back cover texts, and I am told
that the Debian cannot include this in their distribution - therefore,
the Org-mode package in Debian is currently without Manual.

Currently, the copyright notice reads:

@quotation
Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document
under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.1 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 freedom to copy and modify
this GNU Manual, like GNU software.  Copies published by the Free
Software Foundation raise funds for GNU development.''
@end quotation


Can someone tell me what the right steps would be in this situation?   
Thanks.

- Carsten

Re: Copyright question

[David Hansen]

On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 16:43:05 +0200 Carsten Dominik wrote:

> Can someone tell me what the right steps would be in this situation?

Aren't the Debilian people happy if you just remove the invariant
sections?

David

Re: Copyright question

[Stefan Monnier]

> I would like to switch the copyright of the Org-mode manual to GPL.
> Currently it is GFDL, with front/back cover texts, and I am told
> that the Debian cannot include this in their distribution - therefore,
> the Org-mode package in Debian is currently without Manual.

Actually, Debian can and does include such things in their distribution,
but in the `non-free' section.  This is the case for the Emacs online
docs (in package emacs22-common-non-dfsg).

Also, you do not need to abandon the GFDL to be allowed in the main
section of Debian.  You "only" need to use the GFDL without any
front&back matters (IIRC).

I find this situation (w.r.t Debian vs GNU manuals) rather sad, but
I don't see much hope for a resolution.


        Stefan

Re: Copyright question

[Glenn Morris]

Carsten Dominik wrote:

> I would like to switch the copyright of the Org-mode manual to GPL.

I don't think this is your decision to make, since you are not the
copyright holder. You would have to ask the FSF, probably in the
person of rms in this case.

Re: Copyright question

[Juanma Barranquero]

On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 21:40, Glenn Morris <rgm@gnu.org> wrote:

> I don't think this is your decision to make, since you are not the
> copyright holder.

Well, Carsten is the author. Isn't he allowed to redistribute the Org
manual under new licensing (though that wouldn't affect previously
distributed copies, of course)? That would be weird...

  Juanma

Re: Copyright question

[İsmail Dönmez]

Hi,

On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 11:47 PM, Juanma Barranquero <lekktu@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 21:40, Glenn Morris <rgm@gnu.org> wrote:
>
>> I don't think this is your decision to make, since you are not the
>> copyright holder.
>
> Well, Carsten is the author. Isn't he allowed to redistribute the Org
> manual under new licensing (though that wouldn't affect previously
> distributed copies, of course)? That would be weird...

Of course he can relicense it but he can't relicense the version thats
currently distributed _with_ emacs, only FSF can do that.

Regards,
ismail


-- 
Never learn by your mistakes, if you do you may never dare to try again.

Re: Copyright question

[David Kastrup]

"Juanma Barranquero" <lekktu@gmail.com> writes:

> On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 21:40, Glenn Morris <rgm@gnu.org> wrote:
>
>> I don't think this is your decision to make, since you are not the
>> copyright holder.
>
> Well, Carsten is the author. Isn't he allowed to redistribute the Org
> manual under new licensing (though that wouldn't affect previously
> distributed copies, of course)? That would be weird...

Sure.  But we don't allow people to distribute what they like under the
licenses they like as part of _Emacs_.  This is more about the license
policies of Emacs than of the FSF in general.  I would guess that
Richard is the right person to ask here.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum

Re: Copyright question

[Don Armstrong]

On Thu, 12 Jun 2008, Carsten Dominik wrote:
> I would like to switch the copyright of the Org-mode manual to GPL.
> Currently it is GFDL, with front/back cover texts, and I am told
> that the Debian cannot include this in their distribution - therefore,
> the Org-mode package in Debian is currently without Manual.

You could satisfy Debian's requirements simply by making the manual
available under the GPL in addition to the GFDL. No need to stop
distributing it under the GFDL.


Don Armstrong

-- 
We were at a chinese resturant.
He was yelling at the waitress because there was a typo in his fortune
cookie.
 -- hugh http://www.gapingvoid.com/Moveable_Type/archives/000321.html

http://www.donarmstrong.com              http://rzlab.ucr.edu

Re: Copyright question

[Bastien]

Don Armstrong <don@donarmstrong.com> writes:

> On Thu, 12 Jun 2008, Carsten Dominik wrote:
>> I would like to switch the copyright of the Org-mode manual to GPL.
>> Currently it is GFDL, with front/back cover texts, and I am told
>> that the Debian cannot include this in their distribution - therefore,
>> the Org-mode package in Debian is currently without Manual.
>
> You could satisfy Debian's requirements simply by making the manual
> available under the GPL in addition to the GFDL. No need to stop
> distributing it under the GFDL.

Yes, dual licencing looks like to be the easiest solution. 

Why is this not the one chosen for Emacs manual as well?

-- 
Bastien

Re: Copyright question

[Glenn Morris]

"İsmail Dönmez" wrote:

> Of course he can relicense it

This was not as obvious to me as it was to others, since we assign our
past and future rights to the FSF. But looking at the details, they
grant rights back to the original author, so if there is a "pristine"
version of org.texi that is solely your own work, you can probably do
what you like with it.

Re: Copyright question

[Alfred M. Szmidt]

   > You could satisfy Debian's requirements simply by making the
   > manual available under the GPL in addition to the GFDL. No need
   > to stop distributing it under the GFDL.

   Yes, dual licencing looks like to be the easiest solution.

   Why is this not the one chosen for Emacs manual as well?

The GPL, being a free software license, lacks important provisions for
free documentation; which is what the GFDL provides.

Re: Copyright question

[Richard M Stallman]

Debian's policy is foolish and unfriendly to us.  So we do not cater
to it.  If they don't like the results, they should change the policy.

Re: Copyright question

[Stephen J. Turnbull]

Richard M Stallman writes:

 > Debian's policy is foolish and unfriendly to us.  So we do not cater
 > to it.  If they don't like the results, they should change the policy.

Since when does Carsten Dominik make policy for Debian?

Re: Copyright question

[Carsten Dominik]

On Jun 12, 2008, at 9:33 PM, Stefan Monnier wrote:

>> I would like to switch the copyright of the Org-mode manual to GPL.
>> Currently it is GFDL, with front/back cover texts, and I am told
>> that the Debian cannot include this in their distribution -  
>> therefore,
>> the Org-mode package in Debian is currently without Manual.
>
> Actually, Debian can and does include such things in their  
> distribution,
> but in the `non-free' section.  This is the case for the Emacs online
> docs (in package emacs22-common-non-dfsg).
>
> Also, you do not need to abandon the GFDL to be allowed in the main
> section of Debian.  You "only" need to use the GFDL without any
> front&back matters (IIRC).

Well, I am happy with this solution, so I am going to remove these  
parts from
the copyright notice.  The copyright notice will now read:


@quotation
Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document
under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.1 or
any later version published by the Free Software Foundation.
@end quotation


Any objections?

Thanks.

- Carsten

Re: Copyright question

[Andreas Röhler]

Am Freitag, 13. Juni 2008 schrieb Glenn Morris:
> "İsmail Dönmez" wrote:
> 
> > Of course he can relicense it
> 
> This was not as obvious to me as it was to others, since we assign our
> past and future rights to the FSF. But looking at the details, they
> grant rights back to the original author, so if there is a "pristine"
> version of org.texi that is solely your own work, you can probably do
> what you like with it.
> 
> 
> 

What means "pristine"? New from the scratch?

Copyright-assigment policy will lead to burocracy. It will discourage people 
and stiffle their creativity. And probably it will shadow reputation of FSF, 
which is to deplore not only for Emacs's sake.

I miss the human maintainer and copyright-notice in the sources. It was always 
nice to read. Maintainer FSF reads terrible. 

Greetings

Andreas Roehler

Re: Copyright question

[Miles Bader]

Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> writes:
>> I miss the human maintainer and copyright-notice in the sources. It was
>> always nice to read. Maintainer FSF reads terrible. 
>
> I agree fully.  Can't people be proud of their contributions and leave
> their name in?

I'm not quite sure what the complaint is here.

AFAIK, "Maintainer:  FSF" is just used when there isn't a clear
individual maintainer.  Lots of source files seem to have a non-FSF
maintainer line anyway...

The copyright line reflects the copyright holder, so of course that says
FSF.  If someone wants credit, but isn't currently the maintainer, they
can put in an "Author: ..."  comment (which lots of source files have).

-Miles

-- 
(\(\
(^.^)
(")")
*This is the cute bunny virus, please copy this into your sig so it can spread.

Re: Copyright question

[Alan Mackenzie]

'n Morgen Andreas!

On Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 10:55:14AM +0200, Andreas Röhler wrote:
> Am Freitag, 13. Juni 2008 schrieb Glenn Morris:
> > "??smail Dönmez" wrote:

> > > Of course he can relicense it

> > This was not as obvious to me as it was to others, since we assign
> > our past and future rights to the FSF. But looking at the details,
> > they grant rights back to the original author, so if there is a
> > "pristine" version of org.texi that is solely your own work, you can
> > probably do what you like with it.

> What means "pristine"? New from the scratch?

No, the state it was in before others edited it.

> Copyright-assigment policy will lead to burocracy.

Yes.  But it also prevents other, worse, bureaucracy (yes, it's much
easier to spell in German ;-).

> It will discourage people and stiffle their creativity. And probably it
> will shadow reputation of FSF, which is to deplore not only for Emacs's
> sake.

It hasn't stifled my creativity.  What the copyright assignment is really
about is when "my" copyright is violated, I've got the FSF to take up the
legal cudgels, something I couldn't do on my own.

> I miss the human maintainer and copyright-notice in the sources. It was
> always nice to read. Maintainer FSF reads terrible. 

I agree fully.  Can't people be proud of their contributions and leave
their name in?

> Greetings
> 
> Andreas Roehler

-- 
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).

Re: Copyright question

[David Kastrup]

Richard M Stallman <rms@gnu.org> writes:

> Debian's policy is foolish and unfriendly to us.  So we do not cater
> to it.  If they don't like the results, they should change the policy.

There are two points at issue here.  One is standalone documents
(typically perused in one piece), and one might disagree or not disagree
with Debian: only the documents themselves are affected.

But in this case we have documentation where the most important form is
the info form, and it gets more and more intertwined with Emacs as
whole, to a point where we distribute both together because they form an
integrated whole.

Now the GPL states for modification:

    c) You must license the entire work, as a whole, under this
    License to anyone who comes into possession of a copy.  This
    License will therefore apply, along with any applicable section 7
    additional terms, to the whole of the work, and all its parts,
    regardless of how they are packaged.  This License gives no
    permission to license the work in any other way, but it does not
    invalidate such permission if you have separately received it.

But this means that if somebody comes across an Emacs without Emacs
manual, and a separate Emacs manual, that he can't legally recombine
both into one project.  Also freely copying and pasting back and forth
between Emacs code and Emacs manual is not permitted.

While I have no problem with the GFDL as a licence for the printed Emacs
manual and a separately distributed manual, I find that in its form
integrated in the Emacs distribution, the borders between manual and
code are more or less arbitrarily set by the copyright holder, and they
become inviolable for any subsequent person working on them.

And that sort of defeats the purpose of a "public" license in that the
copyright holder remains the only person capable of doing essential
maintenance and restructuring tasks.

So even while we need not bend over for Debian's sometimes rather wild
ideas in particular with regard to the GFDL, my problem here is not with
the GFDL per se, but that GFDL and GPL don't mix and are incompatible.
And yet we form an integrated whole without a really sharp functional
borderline and distribute it, and people have to adhere to the fuzzy
borderline and hope for the best legally.

For that reason, I would very much welcome dual-licensing GPL/GFDL where
the principal form of a manual will be info, and where code and manual
form as tightly a whole as it does nowadays with Emacs.  Since the GPL
demands redistribution of the corresponding machine-readable source, I
doubt that the dual-licensing will lead to much GPL-licensed output in
actual print.

So in short: never mind what people (in particular Debian) think about
the GFDL per se, but the GPL incompatibility is something that worries
me where the documentation is an integrated part of a GPLed project.

And Emacs is probably the boilerplate example.  Of course, we got there
gradually: at one point the manual was much more concise, and much more
a separate thing (and we also distributed it separately and DOC strings
and customization menus did not link into it).  While the GFDL was not a
problem for the Emacs manual at the start, I think at the current point
of time making it dual-licensed GPL/GFDL would put the "Public" in GPL
for Emacs as a distributed whole project back into perspective.

In the end, this is for the copyright holder to decide, so there is not
much sense in fighting or debating about it, in particular on
Emacs-devel.  So I'll try very hard not to debate or defend this view of
mine.  I just felt I should state it since I have the feeling that Emacs
is moving more and more into making the manuals an integrated part of
it, and I feel that this makes our way of distributing it more
problematic with regard to the spirit of the "Public" in "GPL".  Because
I feel less and less like we ourselves are distributing the work "as a
whole" under the terms of the GPL, and yet demand that others do.

A dual-license would remove that concern for me.

-- 
David Kastrup

Re: Copyright question

[Alan Mackenzie]

Hi, Richard!

On Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 12:06:34AM -0400, Richard M Stallman wrote:
> Debian's policy is foolish and unfriendly to us.  So we do not cater to
> it.  If they don't like the results, they should change the policy.

It needs to be pointed out, in all fairness, that the Gnu Free
Documentation License is very controversial, being far from universally
loved by hackers (in contrast to the GPL), and is regarded as suspect by
many good hackers and several Emacs developers.

The reservations stem from the restrictions the GFDL imposes on the
freedom to adapt and reuse documents.  These are much more onerous than
those imposed by the GPL.

Whilst Debian's policy is not friendly towards "us", it is unfair to
brand it as foolish.  It is motivated by the desire to keep documentation
free.

-- 
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).

Re: Copyright question

[David Kastrup]

Carsten Dominik <dominik@uva.nl> writes:

> On Jun 12, 2008, at 9:33 PM, Stefan Monnier wrote:
>
>>> I would like to switch the copyright of the Org-mode manual to GPL.
>>> Currently it is GFDL, with front/back cover texts, and I am told
>>> that the Debian cannot include this in their distribution - 
>>> therefore,
>>> the Org-mode package in Debian is currently without Manual.
>>
>> Actually, Debian can and does include such things in their
>> distribution,
>> but in the `non-free' section.  This is the case for the Emacs online
>> docs (in package emacs22-common-non-dfsg).
>>
>> Also, you do not need to abandon the GFDL to be allowed in the main
>> section of Debian.  You "only" need to use the GFDL without any
>> front&back matters (IIRC).
>
> Well, I am happy with this solution, so I am going to remove these
> parts from the copyright notice.  The copyright notice will now read:
>
> @quotation
> Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document
> under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.1 or
> any later version published by the Free Software Foundation.
> @end quotation
>
> Any objections?

General GNU project policy is to distribute with certain front&back
matters.  So I'd ask Richard whether he is ok with it since he still is
pretty much the one setting the project licensing policies in Emacs.

Note that for the distribution as an integral part of Emacs, this is
sort of pointless, since the Emacs manuals are "Debian non-free" anyway
and so it is not particularly useful if org-mode is different here.

For the org-mode distributed separately by yourself, I believe it is
utlimately your own call to make, though it would be appropriate, if it
is registered as a GNU project, to apply the general guidelines to it.

-- 
David Kastrup

Re: Copyright question

[Andreas Röhler]

Am Freitag, 13. Juni 2008 schrieb Alan Mackenzie:
> 'n Morgen Andreas!
> 
> On Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 10:55:14AM +0200, Andreas Röhler wrote:
> > Am Freitag, 13. Juni 2008 schrieb Glenn Morris:
> > > "??smail Dönmez" wrote:
> 
> > > > Of course he can relicense it
> 
> > > This was not as obvious to me as it was to others, since we assign
> > > our past and future rights to the FSF. But looking at the details,
> > > they grant rights back to the original author, so if there is a
> > > "pristine" version of org.texi that is solely your own work, you can
> > > probably do what you like with it.
> 
> > What means "pristine"? New from the scratch?
> 
> No, the state it was in before others edited it.
> 
> > Copyright-assigment policy will lead to burocracy.
> 
> Yes.  But it also prevents other, worse, bureaucracy (yes, it's much
> easier to spell in German ;-).
> 
> > It will discourage people and stiffle their creativity. And probably it
> > will shadow reputation of FSF, which is to deplore not only for Emacs's
> > sake.
> 
> It hasn't stifled my creativity.  What the copyright assignment is really
> about is when "my" copyright is violated, I've got the FSF to take up the
> legal cudgels, something I couldn't do on my own.
> 
[ ... ]

Hi, Gruß nach Nürnberg,

let aside some stipulations in the assigment itself: In
case of GPL violations FSF could pay the lawyer and
take over the legal fees (as getting
your right from courts and have it are fairly
different kind of things in this world :)).

With respect to the financial consequences, should once
cap. 8 (Termination) of GPL_v3 come into consideration
for businesses, I have some (abstract) fears: A kind
of GPL-violations-industry might rise up. We have seen
such "humanitarian" industries already in other areas,
making lawyers rich but ruin common people and
businesses. At least that's not freedom. And sure,
that's not nowadays FSF's intention.

Thanks all

Andreas Röhler

Re: Copyright question

[David Kastrup]

Andreas Röhler <andreas.roehler@online.de> writes:

> let aside some stipulations in the assigment itself: In
> case of GPL violations FSF could pay the lawyer and
> take over the legal fees (as getting
> your right from courts and have it are fairly
> different kind of things in this world :)).

They are a tax-exempted charity.  They can't just pay some lawyer and
fees nilly-willy, in particularly not when the copyright holder for whom
they are paying is not even in the United States.

Anyway, this particular argument/sentiment is not related to Emacs at
all and thus off-topic here.

-- 
David Kastrup

Re: Copyright question

[Stefan Monnier]

> AFAIK, "Maintainer:  FSF" is just used when there isn't a clear
> individual maintainer.  Lots of source files seem to have a non-FSF
> maintainer line anyway...

Indeed.  I'd be very happy to reduce the number of "Maintainer: FSF"
lines ;-)
As it stands, this number is growing for 2 reasons:
1 - the size of Emacs is increasing.
2 - maintainers don't last forever.  When they defect, the package
    stays, but often, no other maintainer steps forward.


        Stefan

Re: Copyright question

[Richard M Stallman]

    > Also, you do not need to abandon the GFDL to be allowed in the main
    > section of Debian.  You "only" need to use the GFDL without any
    > front&back matters (IIRC).

    Well, I am happy with this solution,

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.

Re: Copyright question

[Richard M Stallman]

Debian's policy starts from good motives, but they were too rigid in
carrying them out, and reached a foolish conclusion.  I wish they
would change it, but I can't make them change it.

Re: Copyright question

[Alan Mackenzie]

On Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 06:48:27PM -0400, Richard M Stallman wrote:
> Debian's policy starts from good motives, but they were too rigid in
> carrying them out, and reached a foolish conclusion.  I wish they would
> change it, but I can't make them change it.
 
There are many intelligent men and women of good will who, after a great
deal of agonising over the matter, have reached a different conclusion.
However one sees it, the current situation is one great big pain in the
association list.

Nearly everybody agrees there are problems with the current GFDL.  For
example, in the CC Mode manual, there is a page "Sample .emacs file".  If
anyone were to copy this page into her .emacs and modify it (which is the
whole idea), she would then have to license her .emacs under the GFDL
before passing it on.  This is ludicrous.

If anyone wanted to condense this manual into a short snappy reference
card, they would end up printing the cover texts, the invariant sections,
together with the GFDL, the said snappy reference "appearing" (if that is
the right word) somewhere in the tome, almost as an afterthought.  This
isn't much less ludicrous.

It would be nice if the GFDL could be revised to fix these (and other)
ludicrosities.

-- 
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).

Re: Copyright question

[Carsten Dominik]

On Jun 14, 2008, at 12:48 AM, Richard M Stallman wrote:

>> Also, you do not need to abandon the GFDL to be allowed in the main
>> section of Debian.  You "only" need to use the GFDL without any
>> front&back matters (IIRC).
>
>    Well, I am happy with this solution,
>
> 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.

Ok, so I cannot make this change to the version of the manual in GNU  
Emacs.

However, for me the highest priority is that the free software
I write and the documentation that accompanies it should be
available to other with the best guaranties that its use remains
free.  THis is why I distribute Org-mode under the GPL, with Emacs.

I don't have the time or inclination to try to advance this
discussion about the GFDL.  I have been reading some of the
past discussion, and it seems clear to me what the positions are
and that they are not likely to change soon.

The point is, independent of who is right or wrong, I would like
to cater for the needs of the Debian project.  Since I am asked
to not change the copyright for the Manual as distributed with
GNU Emacs, the question that remains for me is this:  Does the
fact that the Org-mode manual is under GFDL mean that I cannot
distribute, separately, a version that I put under GPL?   Or do
I as the author have the freedom to do just that?

Any advice would be much appreciated.

- Carsten

Re: Copyright question

[Glenn Morris]

Alan Mackenzie wrote:

> For example, in the CC Mode manual, there is a page "Sample .emacs
> file". If anyone were to copy this page into her .emacs and modify
> it (which is the whole idea), she would then have to license her
> .emacs under the GFDL before passing it on.

http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html

    If your document contains nontrivial examples of program code, we
    recommend releasing these examples in parallel under your choice
    of free software license, such as the GNU General Public License,
    to permit their use in free software.

Re: Copyright question

[Eli Zaretskii]

> Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2008 12:03:25 +0000
> From: Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de>
> Cc: dominik@uva.nl, emacs-devel@gnu.org
> 
> Nearly everybody agrees there are problems with the current GFDL.

They all have simple solutions.

> For example, in the CC Mode manual, there is a page "Sample .emacs
> file".  If anyone were to copy this page into her .emacs and modify
> it (which is the whole idea), she would then have to license her
> .emacs under the GFDL before passing it on.

This isn't true.

Please, let's not have yet another is-GFDL-good-or-bad-and-how-to-
replace-it-with-GPL discussion.  This horse is already dead, so let's
not beat it to death again.  I find it hard to believe there are many
people here who are interested; those who are, can easily find past
discussions and save us from yet another useless thread.

Re: Copyright question

[Don Armstrong]

On Sat, 14 Jun 2008, Carsten Dominik wrote:
> Does the fact that the Org-mode manual is under GFDL mean that I
> cannot distribute, separately, a version that I put under GPL? Or do
> I as the author have the freedom to do just that?

Assuming you're the sole copyright holder, you have the freedom to
release your works under any license you see fit.


Don Armstrong

-- 
Debian's not really about the users or the software at all. It's a
large flame-generating engine that the cabal uses to heat their coffee
 -- Andrew Suffield (#debian-devel Fri, 14 Feb 2003 14:34 -0500)

http://www.donarmstrong.com              http://rzlab.ucr.edu

Re: Copyright question

[David Kastrup]

Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> writes:

> Nearly everybody agrees there are problems with the current GFDL.

This list is not for discussing the GFDL.  Like other projects, it is
inherently a slowly moving target that gets improved over time.

Whether one likes the GFDL or not or whether Debian likes it or not:
that is not really a topic here.  My beef is not with the GFDL per se,
but rather that the _GPL_ demands to distribute a work as a whole under
the GPL.  And the increasing integration of the GFDL manuals (which is a
convenient and useful thing) makes the definition of "whole work"
increasingly arbitrary in a manner where we

a) don't want to set a precedent for people integrating incompatibly
licensed material with GPL software based on a weird "whole work"
interpretation of Emacs

b) don't want to turn the integration of documentation into a privileged
operation not compatible with the "public" in "General Public License".

The current distribution of Emacs with its incompatible GFDL/GPL
combination strains the credulity of the GPL.  And the more we integrate
info manuals into the Emacs work and reference flow, the worse this
gets.  I certainly hope that this will get sorted out in the long run.
A dual licensing of the technical manuals would certainly help.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum

Re: Copyright question

[Richard M Stallman]

    Does the
    fact that the Org-mode manual is under GFDL mean that I cannot
    distribute, separately, a version that I put under GPL?   Or do
    I as the author have the freedom to do just that?

If you're the author of all the text, you can do that.  But please
don't do that.  Please help us by telling Debian that they should
change their policy.