Re: GFDL/GPL issues

[Robert Dewar]

Richard Kenner wrote:

But even for documentation written by hand, often I find that I'd like to
start out with some comment or example from the actual code.  The GPL / GFDL
dichotomy doesn't allow me to do that, so some documentation just won't get
written.


Taking an example from actual code would be "fair use" and not a violation
of the GPL.  I don't see a problem there.  Taking large pieces of code
in a mechanical way is completely different from the type of manual
copying you're talking about.


I agree with this, taking examples also seems like fair use to me.

Re: GFDL/GPL issues

[Robert Dewar]

Jeff Law wrote:

Isn't one of the specific instances of this issue the desire to copy 
some of the constraints information from the source, which would need to 
go into the user manual rather than internals documentation?


And in some cases a function index with documentation may be precisely 
what the end-user needs -- think runtime libraries.


These cases both seem to fall within the four-test fair use guidlines
to me, and I can't imagine any of the relevant copyright holders seeing
otherwise.

What's concerning is how much time we've got to spend discussing this 
kind of issue rather than getting real work done, all due to a license 
that is insanely controversial.


I would not worry about that, people like to spend time on this kind of
discussion, or they would not do it :-)

Re: GFDL/GPL issues

[Robert Dewar]

Mark Mitchell wrote:


Yes, that is part of his thinking.  And, yes, we can split our manuals
up into GPL and GFDL pieces, and in some cases that will work fine.
But, documentation of constraints (important to users for writing inline
assembly), or documentation of command-line options (important to all
users), or documentation of built-in functions (important to users to
understand the dialect of C we support) are all things that belong in
the manual, not in separate GPL documents.

FSF policy is making it impossible for us to do something useful to
users, that poses no real risk to the FSF's objectives (manuals were
under the GPL for ages without the world ending), and which GCC's
competitors can do.  That's a suboptimal policy.


I don't think it is making this impossible, my advice is simply to
consider this fair use and steam ahead, then worry if someone objects.

Environmental Education Publications

[secretariat]

 <#the_weec>
 <#Le_secr_taire>

 WEEC’s Corner for Environmental Education Publications

 The WEEC (World Environmental Education Cngress) Permanent
Secretariat is trying to turn the website into a window for world-wide
publications, review and events on environmental education.

 If an organization or individual wants to make their materials on
the subject known through our website, we will provide them with a
suitable space.

 Read more...


 Nouveau service de référencement de livres, magazines,
événements sur le site du réseau international de l'éducation
environnementale WEEC.

 Le secrétaire permanent du WEEC (World Environmental Education
Congress) est en train de renouveler le site pour qu’il devienne une
référence pour tous ceux qui veulent être mis à jour sur les
sujets concernant l'éducation environnementale.

 Si vous souhaitez que vos publications, magazines, événements,
soient promus à travers notre réseau, envoyez nous vos
référencements.

 Lire la suite...


 Join to the Network



Sign the memorandum of understanding!


 Adhérez au Réseau

 Signez le protocole d'entente!


 WEEC

Congresses 




 6th WEEC

 The city of Brisbane (Australia) will host the 6th World Congress of
Environmental Education (19-23 July 2011).

 www.environmental-education.org


 6ème WEEC

 Le 6ème congrès mondial de l'éducation à l'environnement (WEEC)
aura lieu à Brisbane (Australie), du 19 à 23 juillet 2011.

 www.environmental-education.org


 See you in Australia - Rendez-vous en Australie!



--
To unsubscribe from this list visit
http://phplist.schole.it/?p=unsubscribe&uid=84f6893f72399658e55f158804404e03

To update your preferences visit
http://phplist.schole.it/?p=preferences&uid=84f6893f72399658e55f158804404e03



--
Powered by PHPlist, www.phplist.com --

Re: GFDL/GPL issues

[Mark Mitchell]

Robert Dewar wrote:

> I don't think it is making this impossible, my advice is simply to
> consider this fair use and steam ahead, then worry if someone objects.

Despite the copyright holder (well, RMS, but he certainly can be
interpreted as speaking for the FSF) saying plainly and clearly that he
thinks that you *cannot* do this?

-- 
Mark Mitchell
CodeSourcery
m...@codesourcery.com
(650) 331-3385 x713

Re: GFDL/GPL issues

[Joern Rennecke]

Quoting Mark Mitchell :


Robert Dewar wrote:


I don't think it is making this impossible, my advice is simply to
consider this fair use and steam ahead, then worry if someone objects.


Despite the copyright holder (well, RMS, but he certainly can be
interpreted as speaking for the FSF) saying plainly and clearly that he
thinks that you *cannot* do this?


Actually, the legal definition of fair use / fair dealing that might or might
not apply depends on the country of residence of the contributer, but if
RMS says you shouldn't do this, ignoring him is not proper in the context of
a GNU project - and if you are doing a fork to get away from FSF policies,
you might as well write your documentation GPLed.

Re: GFDL/GPL issues

[Toon Moene]

Richard Kenner wrote:


But even for documentation written by hand, often I find that I'd like to
start out with some comment or example from the actual code.  The GPL / GFDL
dichotomy doesn't allow me to do that, so some documentation just won't get
written.


Taking an example from actual code would be "fair use" and not a violation
of the GPL.  I don't see a problem there.  Taking large pieces of code
in a mechanical way is completely different from the type of manual
copying you're talking about.


Not so fast - I know I got mighty suspicious of claims by non-lawyers 
about copyright issues by reading groklaw.net for over five years, but 
consider the following:


If you point your browser at:

http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-3.4.6/g77/Table-of-Intrinsic-Functions.html#Table-of-Intrinsic-Functions

you'll see literally up to a hundred entries of documentation that were 
generated in the following way:


1. There is a definition file that documents the interfaces to Fortran
   run time libraries (a GPL'd file).

2. There is a program (GPL'd) that generates:

   a. texinfo documentation from them, that ultimately leads to the web
  pages you view (GPL'd - in the old days).

   b. in addition, it generates the interfaces to the Fortran run-time
  libraries (which were LGPL'd, if I recall correctly).

In this way, we were sure that the documentation of the g77 run time 
library was commensurate with its implementation - more than once it has 
saved us from expensive debugging exercises to conclude that *yes* the 
implementation didn't match the documentation (or the standard, if the 
docs deviate from the standard).


The GFDL/GPL dichotomy makes this scheme impossible.

--
Toon Moene - e-mail: t...@moene.org - phone: +31 346 214290
Saturnushof 14, 3738 XG  Maartensdijk, The Netherlands
At home: http://moene.org/~toon/; weather: http://moene.org/~hirlam/
Progress of GNU Fortran: http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-4.5/changes.html#Fortran

Re: GFDL/GPL issues

[Robert Dewar]

Mark Mitchell wrote:

Robert Dewar wrote:


I don't think it is making this impossible, my advice is simply to
consider this fair use and steam ahead, then worry if someone objects.


Despite the copyright holder (well, RMS, but he certainly can be
interpreted as speaking for the FSF) saying plainly and clearly that he
thinks that you *cannot* do this?


Whether something is fair use has to be judged on the very specific
instance in question, not clear to me that RMS has opined on a very
specific issue, if so, I missed it.

BTW, the copyright holder has in general nothing to say about whether
something is or is not fair use, that is a statutory issue, based on
the four tests, none of which involves copyright holder input.

Re: GFDL/GPL issues

[Robert Dewar]

Joern Rennecke wrote:


Actually, the legal definition of fair use / fair dealing that might or might
not apply depends on the country of residence of the contributer


Not true in the US for sure.

, but if

RMS says you shouldn't do this, ignoring him is not proper in the context of
a GNU project 


I agree with that, but as I said in my previous note, it is not clear 
that RMS has given input on the fair use issue in the context of a very

specific case ...

Re: GFDL/GPL issues

[Mark Mitchell]

Robert Dewar wrote:

> Whether something is fair use has to be judged on the very specific
> instance in question, not clear to me that RMS has opined on a very
> specific issue, if so, I missed it.

We don't want to ask RMS every time we want to do this.  RMS has opined
on some of the specific cases, such as generating documentation for
command-line options from comments in the code.  He hasn't specifically
said whether he thinks it's a GPL/GFDL violation -- but nothing in what
he's said would suggest to me that he thinks it's not a violation.  In
fact, the statement that we can only run such generation scripts in the
FSF repository, since only the FSF can relicense the code, would seem to
suggest that he believes that, in general, you can't do this.

In any case, you're suggesting we go against the express wishes of the
FSF.  Would you suggest that we do that in the context of FSF GCC?

-- 
Mark Mitchell
CodeSourcery
m...@codesourcery.com
(650) 331-3385 x713

Re: GFDL/GPL issues

[Joern Rennecke]

Quoting Robert Dewar :


Joern Rennecke wrote:

Actually, the legal definition of fair use / fair dealing that   
might or might

not apply depends on the country of residence of the contributer


Not true in the US for sure.


Are you saying that the USA is a solipsist nation that denies the existence
of people (or at least of Free Software developers) in other places?

That would be a rather odd regression, considering that other parts of the
GPL - and in particular v3 - were specifically written so as to to make
its meaning uniform irrespective of differences in national laws.

If you want to make the point that the FSF would have to consider fair
use if it were to sue in an US court - well, AFAICT it wouldn't have to,
it could sue in the court of the contributor's country of residence /
incorporation, as is common in patent cases where the patent might be
invalid in the patent holders's country of incorporation.