Re: GFDL/GPL issues

[Joern Rennecke <amylaar@spamcop.net>]

Quoting Basile Starynkevitch <basile@starynkevitch.net>:

> On Wed, 2010-05-26 at 11:19 -0700, Mark Mitchell wrote:
>>
>> As for practical advice regarding getting quicker decisions from the FSF
>> on licensing issues, I have none.  I've worked on several such issues
>> with the FSF over the years, and they've all been lengthy processes.  If
>> I knew how to do it faster, I certainly would.  The best way to work
>> with the FSF on license issues is always to explain how whatever request
>> you are making furthers the FSF's goals.
>
> [not being a native english speaker, I had lots of trouble understanding
> the last sentence above; apparently, according to my Robert&Collins
> english<->french dictionnary applied twice, "to further" means "to
> favour" in that context; is that understanding the right one?].

To a first order of approximation.  Pedantically speaking, you could be said
to favour the goals of the FSF over the goals of some other organization if
do less damage to the  goals of the FSF than to that of that other
organization.  OTOH 'further' in the context above does not allow such
a nefarious interpretation, it means that you are actually helping to
archieve/promote the goals of the FSF.

> First, I have no idea of who the FSF really means (except RMS). Who
> should I contact by email? What should I tell? What do I risk? What are
> the *technical* background I can assume? Do FSF people know what coding
> is about? (RMS certainly does, but is he most of FSF?).

There is some information on the fsf.org site.  You could also try
that question on gnu.misc.discuss .

> Second, I believe I tried hard to explain what MELT is doing w.r.t.
> documentation in an email (dated May 07th)
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2010-05/msg00125.html to which *nobody*
> responded. Or was gcc@ the wrong list to ask?
>
> Are there any reason for which I should expect more attention now? I
> don't understand why a question nobody cared about on May 7th should
> become interesting on May 27th of the same year (2010).

Well, then we were still kind of hoping the FSF would come up with a
useful policy that allows using copyrightable elements from the code
to be used in its documentation, and vice versa.
However, now it doesn't look like that such a policy is forthcoming in
a timeframe relevant to current GCC development.

> And all this is not really MELT related, and perhaps even not even GCC
> related. Several GNU projects (notably GTK) generates documentation from
> code. Not understanding at all any internal (& personal) factors from my
> far continent (I am European, and I am not a lawyer!), I cannot imagine
> why any "policy" defined for GTK would not be ok for GCC? Or are not all
> GNU projects equal? Is GTK less important to the FSF than GCC? Or maybe
> GTK is not an FSF project, (this implying that GNU software is not FSF
> software)? Or are there still no FSF copyrighted software generating
> some small documentation from code! (we are in 2010, and it is common
> practice; I could imagine that bash or binutils have similar issues.).
> And for GTK at least, the header files only mention LGPL license, and
> apparently not any additional exception related to documentation...

I'm also at a loss why the GNU package maintainers, who are charged with
selecting which contributions to accept or reject, making sure each
relevant file has a license notice and that the program is properly documented
(http://www.gnu.org/prep/maintain/maintain.html,
  http://www.gnu.org/prep/standards/standards.html),
cannot authorize to put pieces of GPLed code/documentation under the GFDL,
or pieces of GFDLed code under the GPL, as long this is done in order to
pursue the goals set out in the above documents.

> And there is one even more basic thing I don't understand. Why are GFDL
> & GPL incompatible?

That one is easy.  The GPL, unlike the  GFDL, has a concept of source code,
which is relevant for the operation of the license.
I.e. I can auto-generate GFDL documentation from differently licensed source,
and distribute the result under the GFDL, and am free to mix it with other
GFDL documentation.  The same is not true for GPLed code.
The GPL does only grant redistribution rights under the GPL.  Since the
GFDL does not have a source code concept, it is not the GPL, so redistribution
rights under the GFDL are not granted by the GPL.
Likewise, the GFDL only grants redistribution rights under
'precisely this License', thus no redistribution rights under the GPL
are granted.

> Also, some official GCC documentation contains substantial chunks of
> code (e.g. plugins.texi). Does that mere fact legally invalidate
> something?

Ask a lawyer.  Or maybe more than one... the answer probably varies
with the jurisdiction.
Prima facie, it is unsafe to use any GFDLed documentation to write
GPLed code; see PR other/44032.

> In practice, should I have to erase all the :doc annotations in MELT
> source code?

I don't see how the annotations would be a problem; the problem only
arises when you have auto-generating scripts that use these annotations
and transform them into something whose sole purpose is to interface
with non-GPL (texinfo) code.
Moreover, if you wrote all these annotations yourself, under your own
Copyright Assignment to the FSF, then you should be able to get a GFDL
license in place for the generated file after giving the FSF notice
(see my previous post).