Adrian Colomitchi <acolomitchi@gmail.com> writes:
1. there is a distinction between documentation and application software, even if the distinction is not located in the "bitstreams". Consequence: I cannot agree with the assertion of "one can treat documentation the same way as one can treat application (source) code; therefore, why does one need FDL when GPL is already there?"
That's not an assertion, it seems to be phrased as an assertion. Nevertheless, it *is* incumbent on those proposing the FDL to show why a more restrictive license is appropriate.
I've shown that “because the copyright holder decrees that this work won't be used as anything but a document” is not a justification for those restrictions. The way I see the things: the protection of the copyright are supporting
On Tue, 2013-07-23 at 23:09 +1000, Ben Finney wrote: the restrictions imposed by the author *only when* the work is used as a document(ation), and not *because* the author decrees it has to be used as a documentation.
In other words, I see the assertion of "FDL is not as free for documentation as GPL is for application software" as irrelevant
The point is rather that the *self-same work* can be both program and documentation – either right now, or in some future derived work. And the copyright holder can't decree when that might be the case in some derived work, so shouldn't be making that decision for future recipients in order to restrict their freedoms.
Still irrelevant in my opinion (as the argumentation hinges on the "format/encoding" and not targeting the "form of expression"). The "form of expression as a documentation" is protected by the copyright law and the copyright law will protect it no matter the *format* (bitmap or PS/PDF or printed or anything). But any other works derived from the said documentation that are used *for other purposes* won't be restricted by copyright law, no matter the license under which the original documentation is published. The copyright law will not protect the original documentation again a whole heap of actions. One can freely: a. use the documentation to write a book about the documented product. Why, you are even allowed to include parts of the original document, as long as it's clear that you cite/quote from the original doc! b. parse the documentation and derive a source code for your needs - note: this assumes the document is indeed *released as a documentation* and not a source code listing; c. print it as Postcript and use the subroutines defined by the documentation in the "Postscript dictionary" to compute the first 1000 digits of PI. Or change the data those subroutines applies on to draw a huge outline of the classical pose of Marilyn Monroe above the subway grate in the "The 7 years itch" movie. The copyright law will *not* protect the Postcript code, only the rendering of that postscript that results in the original documentation. d. use the documentation to "sing it" (make a musical arrangement and transform it in an 10-hours boring opera; or "transpile" the letters or words in the documentation on notes/rhythm/instruments somehow and distribute it as a sheet music) e. print the documentation and use the paper to build a huge origami statue. Now, you may say the above examples are far fetched and quite distant from scenarios in which the freedom of the reader is *unfairly* constrained, and you are likely to be right (except maybe points a. and b.). If so, please feel free to add to this conversation some scenarios in which the freedom of the recipient is seriously and negatively impaired and this gives an *unfair* advantage to the author. I'm not saying such cases don't exist, I simply put out the "conjecture" that such cases are rare and can easily be worked-around inside the current copyright laws; so much so that the issue of finding a better substitute for GNU FDL may not worth the effort for an overreaching crusade. Adrian