Re: GNU FDL 1.2 draft comment summary posted, and RFD
On Thu, Jun 13, 2002 at 09:56:34PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> I would say it has to be for the version corresponding to the hardcopy,
> just as the GPL requires. I don't think this is an economically
> infeasible requirement. It's part of the responsibility of
> distributing.
Agreed. Just wanted to make sure.
> > 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.
>
> If it's the professor's document and he holds the copyright, the DFCL
> isn't binding on him. He's the author. He has monopoly rights on the
> work. He doesn't have to do anything he doesn't want to. The DFCL
> applies to those to whom he chooses.
>
> If it's not the professor's document -- if he got it from someplace
> else, or his university claims copyright on every thought that escapes
> his head onto the printed page, then he's already going to have to deal
> with bureaucracy, and may not be at liberty to license the paper under
> the DFCL anyway. If he does, the university will likely provide him
> with the technology to do version control, and/or mandate that the use
> it to protect "their" economic interest. In both of these cases he's a
> licensee just like anyone else.
Fair enough. Would offering students the facility to copy source onto CD
at the time of distribution be enough for you, or are you heading for the
GPL's "3 years"?
> > Thoughts?
>
> Yup. :)
Well, *that* is one thing that does go without saying ;)
Cheers,
Nick
--
Nick Phillips -- nwp@lemon-computing.com
Good day for a change of scene. Repaper the bedroom wall.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: