GNU GPL for doc -- Why?

[IIDA Yosiaki]

  Tschues!

Werner Koch <wk@gnupg.org> writes:
>>What I really want to say is that it would be better
>>applying permission notice than applying GNU GPL to
>>documentation.
>That is up to the FSF - can't change it.  

  Since you are the author of GPH, you can change copying
condition policy, even after you covered GPH by GNU GPL
published by FSF.

>Hmmm, you have to write it using the Docbook language, run Jade or

  That is what I mean I know there is no difference between
data and documentation.  As I might write before, I even
wrote my own M4 macros to support SGML output.  I was lucky
because those macros seems to be a pure program, without
documentation.  People can and do execute this M4 macro, but
almost all people don't need to read it, while people just
read documentation, and don't execute it.

>other tools over it, and run a formatter backend.  Looks pretty much
>like the usual way programs are created.

  Yes, it does look.  But what do you want people to do with
your handbook?  I see you want people read it.  You also want
people run and execute it, in order to make people read it.
Of cource you allow people execute it, but this seems not
your main intension.

  I see that which of GNU GPL or permission notices on
manuals you want to apply depends on what you want people to
do which of reading or running.  If you want people to run
it, you use GNU GPL.  If you want people just read it, you
probably don't want to use GNU GPL, though it is possible
and you have right to do so.

  You also want to consider which help people much, allowing
people to redistribute paper copy without machine-readable
source, or allowing people to redistribute paper copy always
with machine-readable source.
  For program, a copy without machine-readable source is not
so useful.  That is why GNU GPL prohibit this.  For
documentation, a copy may be useful even without machine-
readable source.
  
  There are mixtures of program and documentation, such as
DEK's WEB format, which may need another kind of license,
when you want them copylefted.  But this is not what I am
talking at this moment.

>I think that the machine-readable source should accompany every
>printed version[...]

  Hmm, as a matter of fact, I was planning to publish paper
copy of my translation from a publisher in Japan, since I
wanted people to read the Japanese translation.  Do I have
to accompany machine-readable source with it?

>[...]it is much easier to search for things using a
>machine.

  Absolutely yes.
  A paper copy of document with machine-readable source
helps more than without.

  Thanks.
--
  iida