On Sat, Oct 11, 2003 at 05:00:16PM +0000, Brian M. Carlson wrote: > I would recommend the GNU General Public License, version 2. This > accomplishes your goals, and it is unequivocally free. I have equivocated on its freeness before, with respect to clauses 2a) and 2c). Also, I see no reason the author can't dual-license under the GNU GPL and and the GNU FDL. It might be easier to get the publisher to go along with that if they've already bought into the rhetoric that the GNU GPL is an "inappropriate" license for printed documentation. -- G. Branden Robinson | Software engineering: that part of Debian GNU/Linux | computer science which is too firstname.lastname@example.org | difficult for the computer http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | scientist.
Description: Digital signature