Free documentation licenses

[John Cowan]

kmself at ix.netcom.com wrote:

> No, it is specific to documentation, so long as the documentation
> doesn't incorporate code from the project.

My point was that it is convenient for documentation and software to
be under the same license, so that the same set of persons can make
revisions to both in synchrony.

If the software were BSD and the doco GPL, then if I make a proprietary
version of the software, then I have two unpalatable alternatives:
write a manual for the proprietary version from scratch, or issue the
manual for the proprietary version under the GPL.

If the software were GPL and the doco BSD, then if anyone rewrote the
doco for greater clarity or some such, then he would be able to make
the improved version proprietary and prevent it from being distributed
with current or future releases of the program.

> Software and its accompanying documentation are generally considered two
> seperate works.  There is no licensing compatibility requirement between
> the docs and the code.  Even where short samples of code could be used
> in the document, they could be incorporated under fair use 107
> exemptions or (possibly) by turning the document as a whole into a
> collective work.

I agree; my argument speaks to expediency, not necessity.

>  I don't believe there's anything in the GNU GPL, e.g.,
> which prohibits publishing of the source code within a book, so long as
> the source itself is clearly identified as GPLd.

I can't see this.  A book which incorporates all of another textual work
strikes me as a paradigm case of a derivative work.  IANAL, but such a book
looks clearly derivative of the source code and as such would have to be
published under the GPL.
 
> Your example is backwards:  newBSD/MIT software can be relicensed under
> GPL.  GPLd software cannot be relicensed, by third parties, under any
> other license (barring GPL versioning allowances), without specific
> authorization from the copyright holder(s).

The term "relicense" should be avoided, as it leads to wifty thinking.
No one but the copyright holder can "relicense" anything, in the
sense of changing the license.

You can create a *derivative* work containing BSD parts and GPL parts,
and license the whole work under the GPL.  You cannot license the
whole work under the BSD license.  You also cannot change the licenses
of the parts.  In particular, I can extract a BSD-licensed component
from a GPL-licensed work and use it in derivative works under the
BSD
license.

-- 
There is / one art                   || John Cowan <jcowan at reutershealth.com>
no more / no less                    || http://www.reutershealth.com
to do / all things                   || http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
with art- / lessness                 \\ -- Piet Hein