[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: If not GFDL, then what?

"Brian M. Carlson" <sandals@crustytoothpaste.ath.cx> writes:

> On Sat, Oct 11, 2003 at 04:18:39PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
>> 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).
> I apologize. I didn't remember reading that when I wrote my message. I
> did not mean to misrepresent your opinion or anyone else's, only to
> represent my own.
>> 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.
> The author asked for a recommendation. I offered one which met the
> specified criteria.

The GNU GPL is somewhat awkward for print distribution: it requires
either a CD of source in the back or an onerous offer valid for three
years.  The best alternative I can consider is to distribute the book
under the GPL, with the special exception that printed copies may be
derived from it, or perhaps a separate license to the publisher.


Brian T. Sniffen                                        bts@alum.mit.edu

Reply to: