Re: GNU FDL 1.2 draft comment summary posted, and RFD
On Thu, Jun 13, 2002 at 07:02:04PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 14, 2002 at 11:02:57AM +1200, Nick Phillips wrote:
> > Yes... so if you've printed/released version 2.7183 of a document (of which
> > I released version 1 under this new license), and version 2.7183 is a
> > book, you can not then rev rapidly to version 3.1416, by which point you
> > have progressively removed content to the point where only a reference card
> > remains, leaving only the sources for the latest version available.
> >
> > I should rewrite that sentence, but I won't.
>
> Yes, you should have.
>
> However, no one is required to archive old versions of software as long
> as they contemporaenously distribute binaries with corresponding source.
>
> I.e., the scenario you describe can happen even with the GNU GPL.
If they are not distributing the sources contemporaneously, but instead
making the written offer, does the source provided on taking up the offer
have to be for the binary they have, or can it be for the "current" version?
In the case of documents, it is less likely that sources will be distributed
with (e.g. paper) copies of the work, so this becomes more important - there
is not only the case of the deliberate license-avoider to consider, but
that of the prof. who revs his document each term and hasn't heard of CVS.
Thoughts?
--
Nick Phillips -- nwp@lemon-computing.com
Beware of a tall blond man with one black shoe.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: