[Celinux-dev] Re: Policy Document (for embedded wiki)

[Randy Dunlap]

On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 17:19:58 -0500 Matt Mackall wrote:

> On Fri, Oct 13, 2006 at 02:10:46PM -0700, Tim Bird wrote:
> > Matt Mackall wrote:
> > > I think GFDL is a bad choice of license, especially in the field of
> > > kernel development.
> > > 
> > > a) it's not GPL compatible (in either direction!)
> > > 
> > I don't agree, but if it's going to cause problems
> > with contribution, it could be an issue.
> 
> Any additional restriction beyond what the GPL specifies makes things
> incompatible because it prohibits additional restrictions. The GFDL's
> so-called anti-DRM provision is one such restriction, the transparent copy
> provision is another, optional invariant sections are another.
> 
> Which means you can't incorporate GPLed content into GFDLed (adding a
> restriction) or GFDLed content into GPLed (removing a restriction)
> beyond what "fair use" allows.
> 
> > > b) the GFDL's advantages for our purposes aren't obvious
> > > 
> > >   The protections it gives beyond what the GPL gives are mainly aimed
> > >   at printed works where authorship is a valuable asset (see invariant
> > >   sections), but authorship on wikis is a fairly nebulous concept.
> > I agree.
> 
> I'd like to see a rationale for using the GFDL. I don't know of any
> aside from "Wikipedia does".
> 
> > > c) it's not even clear that it qualifies as a free license!
> > > 
> > >   This has been hotly debated in several circles, most notably Debian-legal:
> > > 
> > >   http://people.debian.org/~srivasta/Position_Statement.xhtml
> > 
> > The analysis in the position statement is seriously flawed.
> > It takes the requirements for Invariant sections and applies
> > them to the entire text. If you have no invariant sections,
> > as I expect for a wiki, then most of the objections have no
> > basis.
> 
> For Debian's purposes, invariant sections are relevant. Most of the
> FSF's docs have them.
> 
> > Please note that I would prefer not to rehash the entire GFDL
> > debate.  I disagree with the Debian-legal conclusions.
> 
> My point is that it's hotly debated, by lawyers and laypeople alike.
> We can avoid this rather large and muddy gray area trivially by
> avoiding the GFDL entirely.
> 
> > > Further, compatibility with Wikipedia is not terribly important (we
> > > can always link), while ability to mix with the kernel source and
> > > kernel documentation is fairly critical. Which means using the GPL
> > > (v2!).
> > 
> > My proposal for the license policy is:
> >  * text - GFDL
> >  * standalone code with no license mentioned - GPL2
> >  * standalone code with a license mentioned - must be under an OSI-approved license
> >  * patches - licensed same as software to which they apply
> > 
> > Note that the wiki is not SourceForge, so theoretically we could punt on
> > the code issues, and have them hosted somewhere else.  (It's not like there's
> > a shortage of places on the Internet to host code - the CELF wiki could be used
> > for otherwise homeless code and patches.)  I think it's much more likely
> > that text will move between the embedded linux wiki and Wikipedia than
> > between the embedded linux wiki and the kernel sources.
> 
> I'm primarily concerned with the ability to quote non-trivial portions
> of code or text in the text of the wiki. 
> 
> For example, let's say I wanted to put up a page on doing GPIO. It's
> going to be different on every platform, so I'm going to take the
> simple driver I found in arch/arm, quote pretty much the entire thing
> (well beyond "fair use"), and then annotate it, explaining how to
> adapt it to another platform. As I go, I want to quote API bits from
> Documentation/ to an extent that may or may not be fair use.
> 
> The right way to do this sort of thing is not obvious if "text" is
> GFDL and "code" is GPL. The whole page is clearly a derived work, as
> the "text" part can't stand alone. Is the rest of the wiki a derived
> work? Maybe, maybe not.
> 
> With just the GPL, there's no problem.
> 
> > Anyone care to comment on the pros and cons of making the general
> > text GPL2?  The files in <linux>/Documentation are GPL2, no?
> 
> Yes, they are.

I support Matt's position...

---
~Randy