Open Source Ecology talk:Copyright
Both of these licenses are incompatible with the GNU GPL.
Could we include the GNU GPL as one more of the licenses - as a tri-license, or just use the GNU GPL alone? -- AGNUcius
I don't see why we can't tri-license. Will come back later.
Patrick, are you talking about GNU GPL for written content here, or GNU GPL for actual designs. Written content is different than designs. We should probably specify a copylefted license for hardware design, such as http://www.tapr.org/ohl.html or an appropriate license that addresses hardware design, for hardware designs themselves.
There is also the matter of code that will be generated, which is easy (GNU GPL)
But for license of written content here, we can tri license if you'd like. Maybe you can help me understand why GNU Freedoc and creative commons are incompatible with GNU GPL, and why GNU GPL must be included (I don't have a problem with it at all, just want to understand) --SamRose 08:45, 8 March 2008 (PST)
First of all, there is no reason to use the GFDL or the any of the CC licenses when the GNU GPL does all that they need to accomplish and avoids the problems they cause. It is unfortunate that the FSF promotes such a mess.
Second of all, there are many reasons not to use them - primarily that they conflict with the extremely important and most used of all Free Content licenses - the GNU GPL.
You say "written content" is different from design, but I would say that line is fuzzy at best and completely absent if we push the concept to it's final extreme.
The "written content" here are concepts, ideas, plans that are the basis of design - whether it is for mechanical design, or (in my case) toward the design of an economic system of operation. There is no reason to separate them.
The explanations at http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#WhyNotGPLForManuals give no good reasons:
1. Why not be required to offer the Source (the TeX files for instance) to a manual? It would make it possible for an author that wanted to make an improved version to do so with ease. What a terrible idea that it is a burden to authors of non-executable text when the GNU GPL requires it for authors of executable text.
2. The idea of "the standard" version of a manual is just as valid for software because of Trademark. It is illegal to modify the Linux kernel and then distribute it as though it were "the standard" version using the name Linux. This argument has no basis.
3. The statment we permit changes in the text of a manual that covers its technical topic. is vacuous as well, since the GNU GPL obviously also allows modifications. A complete non-argument.
4. Provision for "invariant sections" for the purpose of piggybacking "political positions" is coercion. Why not allow software developers to require political messages be displayed? The reason is that it removes a user's freedom. The GNU GFDL is a terrible idea, and does not preserve User Freedom. I still don't understand how or why RMS decided to create it.
Here are some more explanations
Why You Shouldn't Use the GNU FDL -- http://home.twcny.rr.com/nerode/neroden/fdl.html
This document is being put together to attempt to address some concerns that members of the Debian legal team have about the GNU Free Documentation License. This document attempts to present the reasoning behind the conclusion that the GNU FDL is not regarded as a license that can easily satisfy the Debian Free Software Guidelines. -- http://people.debian.org/~srivasta/Position_Statement.xhtml
The 'by' part of CC-BY-SA requires attribution be attached to all copies. There is no need for this ego inflator. Furthermore, it is sometimes very difficult, and maybe even impossible to determine who the author was. At other times the text (whether considered design or not) may have many authors - in the case of Wikipedia the number could be in the thousands per document. This is an irresolvable tragedy that could have been avoided by sticking with a truly free license such as one of the GNU GPLs.
-- AGNUcius 11:07, 8 March 2008 (PST)