Re: [Groff] GPL or FDL

[Bernd Warken]

> Von: "James K. Lowden" <address@hidden>
>
> On Thu, 24 Jan 2013 16:42:05 +0100 (CET)
> "Bernd Warken" <address@hidden> wrote:
> 
> > So which license should we prefer for documentation files:
> > - make all documentation files into GPL
> > - make all documentation files into FDL
> > - keep the licenses of all files as they are
> 
> I have an innocent, basic question:  Why is the manual copyrighted?
> What use is the manual without the software?  

Unix 7 in the 1960s was free and put under public domain.  There were
people who said: "By public domain, the OS Unix is free for all, so it
is free for me.  So it belongs to me.  So I am free to say that it is
no more free to anyone else.  And I sell a Unix terminal for 150.000 $
(DEC)".  So a copyright is extremely necessary in each published file.

> If someone chose to publish it, what harm?  (Let's not pretend that the
> royalties would amount to much, given the sad state of publishing and
> ~20 years of groff history.)
> 
> If the purpose of the license is to give credit where credit is due, a
> BSD license accomplishes that in a few sentences.  

groff is a GNU project, so the owner is FSF (Free Software Foundation).
So there must be a license of the FSF, either GPL or FDL.  We are only
authors, but not owner.  We depend on the freeness of the FSF.
 
> I don't want to start a firestorm and I don't have a strong opinion,
> not that it matters.  I just question the need to surround the manual
> in so much legal machinery.  

"Legalese" protects everyone who works at the project.  Be glad that
you don't have to formulate your own license text, but can use existing
text with 30 years of experience.

Bernd Warken