Re: If not GFDL, then what?
On Sat, Oct 11, 2003 at 05:00:16PM +0000, Brian M. Carlson wrote:
> > What license would you recommend for that?
>
> I would recommend the GNU General Public License, version 2. This
> accomplishes your goals, and it is unequivocally free. You would be
> compelled to provide source to those who receive a "binary", that is,
> anyone who receives a book, DVI, PS (unless you wrote it this way), or
> other non-source material, must either (a) receive the source "on a
> medium customarily used for software interchange", or (b) be provided
> with a "written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third
> party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing
> source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the
> corresponding source code ... on a medium customarily used for software
> interchange".
While I kind of agree with you, I would point out that you are mistaken
in asserting that the *copyright holder* can be compelled to do anything
at all with their work, no matter what license they release it under.
Given what the original poster said, I too would suggest that they use
the GPLv2 for electronic distribution.
I would however suggest that they use a different license or contract for
the printed version; beware the 'raw' GFDL as use of this would mean that
you were not able to incorporate the editors' changes in the GPL'ed
electronic distribution (unless they agreed to this separately). I really
think you probably ought to talk to a lawyer to come up with a good contract
with the publisher that achieves what you're looking for.
> If you provide the source on a website, then most people will just
> download it from there, and you probably never have to perform source
> distribution.
Most of the GPL applies to the *licensees*, not the licensor.
Cheers,
Nick
Reply to: