Question reguarding GNU FDL license

[m***@bsharitt.com]

Okay, all these GNU licenses are a bit confusing as far as I'm
concerned. I think I've got a decent under standing of the GPL and LGPL
since I've used them, but my latest project will use the FDL. The
project is a "book" on ancient history, of which the specifics of
aren't important for this question. I plan to use Wikipedia articles
for some of the basic background, thus it will be covered by the FDL,
and not one of the easier to understand Creative Commons licenses. The
license of Wikipedia is "Permission is granted to copy, distribute
and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free
Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by
the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant Sections, with no
Front-Cover Texts, and with no Back-Cover Texts.".

I plan to release the final work in and HTML format, and as PDFs and
possible other portable formats(for handhelds and such), and of course
to "source" files I used for the layout and editing of the PDF version.
I may even make a print version available through something like
Lulu.com, if for nothing more than to get my own personal hard copy. I
know for PDFs, paper copies, and other things not editable, you have to
make the sources available in a not proprietary format, and since I use
Scribus, that should be not problem. I have no problem releasing all my
work for free and was originally planning to use the CC Attribution
share alike license, so I'm not looking for loopholes or trying to rip
anybody off. I just mainly want to know how to comply with the license,
especially with PDF and paper versions. Do I just just put a copy of
the FDL in the appendixes along with a link to the source files and in
the front where the copyright notices are, just put the same FDL
copyright notice Wikipedia has? Is there anything else special I have
to do?

[Alfred M. Szmidt]

I plan to use Wikipedia articles for some of the basic background,
thus it will be covered by the FDL, and not one of the easier to
understand Creative Commons licenses.

The GNU FDL is not part of the Creative Commons licenses, many of the
CC licenses are infact problematic since they can disallow charing a
fee for copies.

I have no problem releasing all my work for free [...]

I think you mean gratis, if you do, you should have such problem, a
license that disallows charging a fee for copying is not free in any
sense of the word.

Do I just just put a copy of the FDL in the appendixes along with a
link to the source files and in the front where the copyright
notices are, just put the same FDL copyright notice Wikipedia has?
Is there anything else special I have to do?

You will need to keep the copyright notice that Wikipedia uses intact,
provide a copy of the license in an appendix (or similar, I prefer the
first chapter). Infact, the GNU FDL has a specific section which you
will be interested in, namely the following:


| ADDENDUM: How to use this License for your documents
| ====================================================

| To use this License in a document you have written, include a copy
| of the License in the document and put the following copyright and
| license notices just after the title page:

| Copyright (C) YEAR YOUR NAME.

| Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this
| document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License,
| Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software
| Foundation; with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts,
| and no Back-Cover Texts. A copy of the license is included in
| the section entitled ``GNU Free Documentation License.''

| If you have Invariant Sections, Front-Cover Texts and Back-Cover
| Texts, replace the "with...Texts." line with this:

| with the Invariant Sections being LIST THEIR TITLES, with the
| Front-Cover Texts being LIST, and with the Back-Cover Texts
| being LIST.

| If you have Invariant Sections without Cover Texts, or some other
| combination of the three, merge those two alternatives to suit the
| situation.

| If your document contains nontrivial examples of program code, we
| recommend releasing these examples in parallel under your choice of
| free software license, such as the GNU General Public License, to
| permit their use in free software.


Also, the the `How to use GNU FDL for your documentation', `Tips on
using the GNU FDL', and maybe `How to use the optional features of the
GNU GPL' will be of interest. They are all avaiable from:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/licenses.html#TOCFDL

Cheers.

[Alfred M. Szmidt]

One of the things that is confusing me is the talk about the front
and back cover text. What exactly are they, and what do they mean?

The cover on the front, and the cover on the back. Like art work.

[Brandon Sharitt]

Post by Alfred M. Szmidt
I plan to use Wikipedia articles for some of the basic background,
thus it will be covered by the FDL, and not one of the easier to
understand Creative Commons licenses.
The GNU FDL is not part of the Creative Commons licenses, many of the
CC licenses are infact problematic since they can disallow charing a
fee for copies.
I have no problem releasing all my work for free [...]
I think you mean gratis, if you do, you should have such problem, a
license that disallows charging a fee for copying is not free in any
sense of the word.

No, I did mean free, an in GPLish free speech. That was always my
intention. The particular CC license I had planned to was the
attribution share alike license, which does allow charging releases.

Post by Alfred M. Szmidt
Do I just just put a copy of the FDL in the appendixes along with a
link to the source files and in the front where the copyright
notices are, just put the same FDL copyright notice Wikipedia has?
Is there anything else special I have to do?
You will need to keep the copyright notice that Wikipedia uses intact,
provide a copy of the license in an appendix (or similar, I prefer the
first chapter). Infact, the GNU FDL has a specific section which you
| ADDENDUM: How to use this License for your documents
| ====================================================
| To use this License in a document you have written, include a copy
| of the License in the document and put the following copyright and
| Copyright (C) YEAR YOUR NAME.
| Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this
| document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License,
| Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software
| Foundation; with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts,
| and no Back-Cover Texts. A copy of the license is included in
| the section entitled ``GNU Free Documentation License.''
| If you have Invariant Sections, Front-Cover Texts and Back-Cover
| with the Invariant Sections being LIST THEIR TITLES, with the
| Front-Cover Texts being LIST, and with the Back-Cover Texts
| being LIST.
| If you have Invariant Sections without Cover Texts, or some other
| combination of the three, merge those two alternatives to suit the
| situation.
| If your document contains nontrivial examples of program code, we
| recommend releasing these examples in parallel under your choice of
| free software license, such as the GNU General Public License, to
| permit their use in free software.
Also, the the `How to use GNU FDL for your documentation', `Tips on
using the GNU FDL', and maybe `How to use the optional features of the
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/licenses.html#TOCFDL
Cheers.

One of the things that is confusing me is the talk about the front and
back cover text. What exactly are they, and what do they mean?

[Wei Mingzhi]

Post by Brandon Sharitt
One of the things that is confusing me is the talk about the front and
back cover text. What exactly are they, and what do they mean?

If you print the documents in quantity, you'll need to print them in the cover.
And if you redistribute the document you must retain it.

[Alexander Terekhov]

"Alfred M. Szmidt" wrote:
[...]

Post by Alfred M. Szmidt
license that disallows charging a fee for copying is not free in any
sense of the word.

How come that the GNU GPL, which prohibits charging a fee *for copying*
(see "no charge"), is considered "free" by GNUtians? And, BTW, don't
you know the GNU FDL is considered "conditionally free" by majority of
369 debians?

http://www.debian.org/News/2006/20060316

He he.

regards,
alexander.

[David Kastrup]

Post by Alexander Terekhov
[...]

Post by Alfred M. Szmidt
license that disallows charging a fee for copying is not free in any
sense of the word.

How come that the GNU GPL, which prohibits charging a fee *for copying*
(see "no charge"), is considered "free" by GNUtians?

Oh, the alternate Terekhov universe again.

In mine, the GPL reads:

(clause 1)

You may charge a fee for the physical act of transferring a copy,
and you may at your option offer warranty protection in exchange
for a fee.

What you are referring to is:

2b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in
whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any
part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third
parties under the terms of this License.

The "no charge" clause is for _licensing_, not for _copying_. You may
_not_ hand somebody a copy for whatever price and tell him "and if you
pay me $50 more, I'll license this copy under the GPL to you".

[Alexander Terekhov]

David Kastrup wrote:
[...]

Post by David Kastrup
(clause 1)
You may charge a fee for the physical act of transferring a copy,
and you may at your option offer warranty protection in exchange
for a fee.

That's not about copying, stupid. It's about a "physical act of
transferring a copy" and "warranty protection."

Post by David Kastrup
2b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in
whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any
part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third
parties under the terms of this License.
The "no charge" clause is for _licensing_,

And licensing to do what? Idiot.

regards,
alexander,

[David Kastrup]

Post by Alexander Terekhov
[...]

Post by David Kastrup
(clause 1)
You may charge a fee for the physical act of transferring a copy,
and you may at your option offer warranty protection in exchange
for a fee.

That's not about copying, stupid. It's about a "physical act of
transferring a copy"

Well, it would be pretty foolish to charge someone for copying
something without actually giving him the copy afterwards...

I don't think that the GPL has the power to press conditions on
whether or not I shall pass payment to somebody who creates private
copies and keeps them for himself.

You are really making a cute spectacle here.

Post by Alexander Terekhov

Post by David Kastrup
2b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in
whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any
part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third
parties under the terms of this License.
The "no charge" clause is for _licensing_,

And licensing to do what? Idiot.

To use and redistribute according to the terms of the GPL. It does
not help you much if you are licensed to do so when nobody transferred
a copy to you previously.

[Alexander Terekhov]

Post by David Kastrup

Post by Alexander Terekhov
[...]

Post by David Kastrup
(clause 1)
You may charge a fee for the physical act of transferring a copy,
and you may at your option offer warranty protection in exchange
for a fee.

That's not about copying, stupid. It's about a "physical act of
transferring a copy"

Well, it would be pretty foolish to charge someone for copying
something without actually giving him the copy afterwards...

Uh, retard. Copying and distribution (of copies made by guess
what? yes, it's called *copying*, stupid) are two different "acts".
We've already established that the later is not required to be
gratis (it, in fact, doesn't even need a license because 17 USC
109 is good enough for authorized copies, including copies of
derivative works prepared under the GPL license).

See the light now, GNU genius? Hint: copying is about making
copies. And "copies" are material objects, other than phonorecords,
in which a work is fixed by any method now known or later
developed, and from which the work can be perceived, reproduced,
or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a
machine or device. 17 USC 101. Repeat: "copies" are material
objects. The CD is a "copy." "Works" are the things fixed in a
"copy." There can be many "works" fixed on a CD, each being a
"copy."

[...]

Post by David Kastrup

Post by Alexander Terekhov
And licensing to do what? Idiot.

To use and redistribute

Copyright is about copying (liability for distribution of pirated
copies made by someone else aside for a moment), not use. Use (as
far as it requires copying) of computer programs is permitted
under 17 USC 117 (this section is called "Limitations on exclusive
rights: Computer programs"). As for "redistribute", see above,
retard.

regards,
alexander.

[Richard Tobin]

Post by Alexander Terekhov

Post by David Kastrup
The "no charge" clause is for _licensing_,

And licensing to do what?

To distribute further copies of your copy, not to receive a copy in the
first place. You don't need a licence to receive and use a copy.

A can charge B for a copy of GNU Emacs, but he can't charge B for the
right to give a copy to C.

But of course Terekhov knows this, he is just trying to muddy the waters.

-- Richard

[Alexander Terekhov]

Go to doctor, GNUtian Tobin.

regards,
alexander.

[Richard Tobin]

[junk]

Go away, we're talking about you, not to you.

-- Richard

[Alexander Terekhov]

You're talking bullshit, GNUtian Tobin. In the GPL context, B's right
to give a ("lawfully made") copy to C is not an exclusive right of A
and hence it can not be licensed. It's statutory right. 17 USC 109,
idiot. A copy can be "lawfully made" if it is made by the copyright
owner, made with the authorization of the copyright owner (i.e.
license), or made under one of the exceptions to the copyright owner's
exclusive rights which doesn't exclude copies made under that exception
from the reach of 17 USC 109 such as 17 USC 117 "adaptations" -- non-
exact copies (i.e. they embody derivative computer program works
prepared by copies owners without a license from copyright owners,
under statutory right to modify computer program works instead). The
GPL blatantly ignores essential provisions in copyright law when it
claims that "nothing else grants you permission to modify or
distribute the Program or its derivative works." This assertion is
utter bullshit, and you're utter idiot.

regards,
alexander.

[David Kastrup]

Post by Alexander Terekhov
You're talking bullshit, GNUtian Tobin. In the GPL context, B's right
to give a ("lawfully made") copy to C is not an exclusive right of A
and hence it can not be licensed. It's statutory right. 17 USC 109,
idiot. A copy can be "lawfully made" if it is made by the copyright
owner, made with the authorization of the copyright owner (i.e.
license),

And a copy made under a license retains the license obligations. If I
tell somebody "you can use my car if you bring it back", that's an
authorization of the car owner, a license. But that does not mean
that he can just grab the car and leave it in Warsaw, since he has
"lawfully acquired access" to it.

The obligations of the license remain even with lawfully made copies.

[Alexander Terekhov]

Post by David Kastrup

Post by Alexander Terekhov
You're talking bullshit, GNUtian Tobin. In the GPL context, B's right
to give a ("lawfully made") copy to C is not an exclusive right of A
and hence it can not be licensed. It's statutory right. 17 USC 109,
idiot. A copy can be "lawfully made" if it is made by the copyright
owner, made with the authorization of the copyright owner (i.e.
license),

And a copy made under a license retains the license obligations.

A copy (i.e. material object) "retains" no obligations, retard. A copy
is not a legal person, stupid. Obligations of license contract are
"retained" by licensors and licensees, not copies made under license
contract.

regards,
alexander.