Hubert Chan <hubert@uhoreg.ca> writes:
> The source code requirement is the only thing that you brought up as
> to why the GPL would prevent someone from printing a manual. The
> article you pointed to in another email mentioned cover texts. I
> said that I didn't find either of those to be terribly compelling
> arguments against the GPL. I am trying to understand why you think
> that the GPL places such a terrible burden on printers. If you
> don't have any more reasons, just say so. If you do, then tell me
> what they are. It isn't very productive for you to dance around it
> like this.
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#TOCWhyNotGPLForManuals
In particular, "[T]he GFDL has clauses that help publishers of free
manuals make a profit from selling copies--cover texts, for instance."
It is both an issue of burden and one of ensuring that certain unfair
(to the publisher) practices do not happen. Even if you might not
think that having a written offer to provide source code is a burden,
obviously some publishers do think so -- it could even be viewed as a
burden on those who try to get a book published, if a publisher balks
at providing source code on CD or via a written offer.
--
Michael Olson -- FSF Associate Member #652 -- http://www.mwolson.org/
Interests: Emacs Lisp, text markup, protocols -- Jabber: mwolson_at_hcoop.net
/` |\ | | | Projects: Emacs, Muse, ERC, EMMS, Planner, ErBot, DVC
|_] | \| |_| Reclaim your digital rights by eliminating DRM.
See http://www.defectivebydesign.org/what_is_drm for details.
Attachment:
pgpopcbYnx0qL.pgp
Description: PGP signature