Re: GNU FDL 1.2 draft comment summary posted, and RFD
Andrew Suffield <asuffield@debian.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 12, 2002 at 10:41:04AM -0700, Ben Pfaff wrote:
> > Branden Robinson <branden@debian.org> writes:
> >
> > > My initial strategy is going to be to start from a simple base, like the
> > > OPL without its optional clauses, and add concepts from the GNU GPL, and
> > > the published GNU FDL draft. My main goals are:
> > [...]
> > > * to appeal to people who are already using the OPL or GNU FDL
> > > (especially the latter)
> >
> > Isn't it mostly the FSF that's using the GNU FDL right now? I
> > think it's going to be difficult to talk the FSF into adopting
> > someone else's license.
>
> I've used the FDL before now for documentation I've written. I was
> none too happy with its unnecessary complexities, but it was the best
> available; I'd welcome a simpler and more generally appropriate
> license.
Tom Lord uses it for arch and related projects (www.regexps.com). I
think that he chose it because he assumed it was free.
> My objectives are simple: free, copyleft distribution, but one which
> permits practical hardcopy distribution (not entirely sure what
> "practical" means here); the GPL itself fails on the last
> point. Merely using the GPL with a chaser of "Also, you can print this
> out and distribute it" would seem to weaken the copyleft nature more
> than I would like. Suggestions for solutions to this problem are
> welcome.
How about adding a section 3d) to the GPL with something like
d) Only distribute 100 or fewer copies in a 30 day time period.
That weakens copyleft a bit, but prevents wholesale appropriation. Is
this the sort of thing that you'd like?
I wouldn't actually word it this way. Instead, I'd prefer to
incorporate it as a special exemption to the GPL. But this is a good
place to start.
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: