licensing

Why the GPL?

So why use the GNU Public Licence (made for coders), when books usually use the Creative Commons licence?

Well firstly, BIND is code. The code is mostly normal, English sentences, but those sentences are in plain text, and it's in LaTeX (which is Turing complete), so it's code-of-a-sort, and certainly qualifies as 'source files'.

Secondly, the GPL explicitly states it is for programs and other projects.

Thirdly, BIND has actual code.

This code is what I care about, so it's what is licensed. A Creative Commons licence wouldn't cover the functions used to create goblin stats, or the way the borders are composed, or how the images are layered.

Why not use the Creative Commons licence?

The CC licences would then apply to the pdf, not the code. So when I give someone the pdf, they couldn't change it.

A few people imagine you can change pdfs, because they have a 'pdf editor' of some kind, but those pdf editors can't change BIND properly. Once you add a full page of content, rather than just fixing a word, you'll see more problems than you can possibly handle. The index will be the least of the problems.

You cannot change the pdf without the source files.

Why not use the CC licence on the source files then?

Let's say someone takes the source files, modifies them, and sells the pdf. So far, this is fine - I want people to be able to sell their copies. However, I want to ask for the source code back if I get a copy of their pdf. If the source code itself is licensed under CC, I don't see any way of getting the source code from the pdf.

Can't you use the CC licence for images at least?

Why complicate things with two licences?

Besides, lots of programs contain images and other assets. The GPL covers them just fine.

The GPL also demands that if someone uses an image from BIND in their project, then their project should be covered under the GPL. I'm happy to share-and-share-alike, but I'm less happy about giving resources out to projects where the rest will become proprietary.

Also, some of the images are code. The svg files are simply xml, and as long as you put modifications on separate layers, you can git-merge two versions together.

What about the GFDL?

My impression was that the many people who suggested using the GFDL haven't read it. It's a turgid, awful read, and I don't properly understand it. I can't apply a licence I don't understand.

The GFDL also has no legal precedent which I can find, making it an untested licence.

Further, the licence requires that the licence itself is printed in its entirety in the book, so some appendix F would have to be added (to every book), stating a bunch of legal nonsense that the users players don't care about.

Finally, the GFDL was so poorly received in general that a smaller version was proposed, with fewer restrictions. It was never officially finished, simply proposed, so it too cannot be used.