Re: GFDL and man pages

[Nathanael Nerode]

In other words, you're better off writing your own manpage from scratch.

It's probably OK to look at the manual to help figure out what various 
options do, as long as you then put the manual away and write the 
manpage entirely in your own words.  That's just looking up facts.

Including *text* from the manual would create a derivative work.

You might also want to consider asking upstream to dual-license their 
manual under the same terms as their program.  (If they did that, people
could create --help text from the manual and put it in the program, so 
this might help convince them to do it.)

-- 
Nathanael Nerode  
http://home.twcny.rr.com/nerode/neroden/fdl.html

Re: GFDL and man pages

[Adam Warner]

On Tue, 2003-07-15 at 12:02, Walter Landry wrote:

> This is a summary of what you have to do.  The detailed requirements
> are in section 4 of the GFDL.  Note that this all has to be _in_ the
> manpage.  This may or may not make the manpage useless.  You also have
> to include the "Transparent" version of the manpage, which is
> presumably whatever format you used to create it in.
> 
> And some people wonder why I hate the GFDL.

If you have treelang-3.3 installed try "info treelang" to see how
unfriendly relevant information lookup can become.

If one simply spaces through the info documentation one presses space 47
times on an 80x25 terminal before reaching "Getting Started".

Regards,
Adam

Re: GFDL and man pages

[Walter Landry]

Hans Fugal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I am working on a package (csound) that has no manpages or documentation
> of any sort (include --help) in the source archive. There is, however, a
> detailed reference manual[1] with the GFDL license that includes command-line
> program documentation[2,3]. There are no invariant or cover sections, but
> there is an Acknowledgements section.
> 
> Am I safe to make manpages from this reference manual? Would that be a
> derivative work? What attribution do I need to include and where (in the
> manpages themselves, or in the copyright file, etc.)?

You can make a manpage, but you must

have to include inside the manpage

1) Make a title page that is different from the original manual
2) List yourself as the creator of the manpage plus up to five of 
   the original editors
3) List the publisher of the manpage (you or Debian)
4) Include the full text of the GFDL
5) Include the copyright notices plus your own
6) Include a license notice saying the GFDL applies to this manpage
7) Preserve the list of Invariant Sections and Cover Texts
8) Preserve the network location, if any, given in the Document
   for public access to a Transparent copy of the Document
9) Preserve the Acknowledgements
10) Delete any Endorsements

This is a summary of what you have to do.  The detailed requirements
are in section 4 of the GFDL.  Note that this all has to be _in_ the
manpage.  This may or may not make the manpage useless.  You also have
to include the "Transparent" version of the manpage, which is
presumably whatever format you used to create it in.

And some people wonder why I hate the GFDL.

Regards,
Walter Landry
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Bug#200411: www.debian.org: confusing description of non-US sections

[Brian M. Carlson]

On Mon, Jul 07, 2003 at 09:59:34PM -0700, Matt Kraai wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 08, 2003 at 02:24:25PM +1000, Ben Finney wrote:
> > The "packages" page at 
> > currently says:
> > 
> > =
> > Non-US/Main and Non-US/Non-Free
> > These packages cannot be exported from the USA, they are mostly
> > encryption software packages, or software that is encumbered by patent
> > issues. Most of them are free, but some are non-free.
> > =
> > 
> > The point about encryption software is out of date since we can get any
> > crypto software exported from the USA these days.  The last sentence is
> > needlessly vague.
> 
> The thread
> 
>  http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/debian-legal-200207/msg00029.html
> 
> documents the exact rationale for these sections.  The following
> patch incorporates its conclusions into the packages page.
> 
> I'd appreciate it if the readers of debian-legal would
> double-check it.

What I saw in that thread was Wichert saying that things in non-US
needed to be there because of patents, and Steve Langasek saying that
that those things needed to be in non-US/non-free. That's not what I see
below.

> -Non-US/Main and Non-US/Non-Free
> -  These packages cannot be exported from the USA, they are mostly
> -  encryption software packages, or software that is encumbered by
> -  patent issues. Most of them are free, but some are non-free.
> +Non-US/Main
> +  Packages in this area are free themselves but cannot be
> +  stored on a server in the USA because they are encumbered by
> +  patent issues.

Things in main or non-US/main should not be patent encumbered.
non-US/main is designed so that packages can be imported into the US,
but not exported. If it would not fit the DFSG for any reason, including
being patent-encumbered in the US or other places, then it does not
belong in non-US/main.

> +Non-US/Non-Free
> +  Packages in this area do not necessarily cost money, but
> +  have some onerous license condition restricting use or
> +  redistribution of the software.  They cannot be exported from
> +  the USA because they are encryption software packages or they
> +  cannot be stored on a server in the USA because are encumbered
> +  by patent issues.

Things that belong in non-US, but are patent-encumbered or otherwise
fail to meet the DFSG for any reason belong in non-US/non-free. This
includes things that would be eligible for the crypto-in-main transition
were they free, but in fact are not. For example, IDEA code belongs
here.

One final nitpick: please properly capitalize "non-US", "non-free", and
"main".

-- 
Brian M. Carlson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 0x560553e7
"Let us think the unthinkable, let us do the undoable. Let us prepare
 to grapple with the ineffable itself, and see if we may not eff it
 after all." --Douglas Adams


pgpUPkuGEhY7M.pgp
Description: PGP signature

GFDL and man pages

[Hans Fugal]

I am working on a package (csound) that has no manpages or documentation
of any sort (include --help) in the source archive. There is, however, a
detailed reference manual[1] with the GFDL license that includes command-line
program documentation[2,3]. There are no invariant or cover sections, but
there is an Acknowledgements section.

Am I safe to make manpages from this reference manual? Would that be a
derivative work? What attribution do I need to include and where (in the
manpages themselves, or in the copyright file, etc.)?

Thanks,
Hans

1. http://kevindumpscore.com/docs/csound-manual/
2. http://kevindumpscore.com/docs/csound-manual/commandtop.html
3. http://kevindumpscore.com/docs/csound-manual/utilitytop.html

-- 
 Hans Fugal | De gustibus non disputandum est.
 http://hans.fugal.net/ | Debian, vim, mutt, ruby, text, gpg
 http://gdmxml.fugal.net/   | WindowMaker, gaim, UTF-8, RISC, JS Bach
-
GnuPG Fingerprint: 6940 87C5 6610 567F 1E95  CB5E FC98 E8CD E0AA D460


pgpqm873yeP9U.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: GFDL - status?

[Don Armstrong]

On Sun, 13 Jul 2003, MJ Ray wrote:
> Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Is my license which requires you to buy a jar of pickle relish every
>> time you run the program a free software license?
> 
> The act of running the program is not restricted by a copyright
> licence, so would that even be a valid licence? 

Acts of usage are restricted by many software licenses. I'm not aware
of one that has been successfully defended, as they're primarily used
against competitors, not users, but it's definetly possible.

Obviously, such a license would be non-free though. [At least, I hope
it's obvious.]


Don Armstrong

-- 
Of course, there are ceases where only a rare individual will have the
vision to perceive a system which governs many people's lives; a
system which had never before even been recognized as a system; then
such people often devote their lives to convincing other people that
the system really is there and that it aught to be exited from. 
 -- Douglas R. Hofstadter _Gödel Escher Bach. Eternal Golden Braid_

http://www.donarmstrong.com
http://www.anylevel.com
http://rzlab.ucr.edu


pgpgQORsm0kFG.pgp
Description: PGP signature