Re: GNU FDL 1.2 draft comment summary posted, and RFD
Jeff Licquia <licquia@debian.org> wrote:
> On Fri, 2002-06-14 at 13:40, Walter Landry wrote:
> > When the professor got the source to the book, did she not read the
> > license? Was the professor not giving access to the source of the
> > document? It's not that hard to make an announcement at the beginning
> > of class offering the course to anyone who wants it. Especially for
> > such a large class. I'm sure a number of laptop-happy students would
> > even take her up on it. I just don't see the problem here, unless the
> > professor just thinks, "Oooh, free stuff!" People think that about
> > GPL stuff all the time, and they rightfully get slapped down. What is
> > the problem here?
>
> If there isn't a problem with requiring that the professor distribute
> the source, then there isn't a problem whether the professor distributes
> one copy or one thousand. Therefore, the whole volume exemption is
> unnecessary.
When I give out only a few copies, requiring source distribution adds
significant overhead to the transaction. If I give out lots of
copies, source distribution is an insignificant overhead. There is a
difference.
> For an example of an alternative to arbitrary limits, see the example
> clause I posted in another message in this thread.
Do you mean this?
> - A statement is provided in the same form as the rest of the document
> that describes how the Source for this document may be retrieved at no
> charge.
This should probably be "a charge no more than the cost of physically
performing source distribution" rather than "no charge". I would also
keep the noncommercial distribution stipulation from the GPL. I worry
a little about new loopholes, but I don't think that they're serious.
Now that I consider it, this kind of statement would be fine for me.
Regards,
Walter Landry
wlandry@ucsd.edu
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: