GNU GPL for doc -- Why?

[IIDA Yosiaki]

Werner Koch <wk@gnupg.org> writes:
>The GPL is one possible implementation of a copyleft style license.

  But not the only.

>Hmm, where is the difference?

  Permission notices on other FSF maunals are also
implementations of copyleft.  They are tailored for
documentation.

>Which point of the GPL does make you think it is not appropriate for
>documentation?

  Before I answer this question, I should say this:
    It is up to you, and you have right to dicide whether
    you cover your documentation with GNU GPL or not.
    What I really want to say is that it would be better
    applying permission notice than applying GNU GPL to
    documentation.


  Documentation has neither object code nor executable.
So, the 3rd article of GNU GPL has no sense.

  GNU GPL reads:
#  Activities other than copying, distribution and
#modification are not covered by this License; they are
#outside its scope.
while,
  * Free documentation should also be copied and distributed
by paper, without machine-readable source.  Permission
notices on manuals published by FSF explicitly grant this
act.
  * Free documentation should also be translated into
another natural language.  Most of the permission notices on
manuals published by FSF grant this act.


  Technically, I agree that there are no difference between
program, data and documentation, from the view of collection
of bits.  But I see some meaning in that GNU GPL uses the
word "Program" and that the manual published by FSF is not
covered by GNU GPL.  And I also see that the permission
notices on those manuals are very well sophisticated.
--
  iida