On Sun, Feb 29, 2004 at 12:47:56AM -0500, Jeremy Hankins wrote: > >> But as for the practical problem of distributing hardcopy versions, I > >> simply don't see a way to satisfy the criteria: > >> > >> - DFSG free > >> - copyleft (i.e., can't take it proprietary) > >> - easy to distribute hardcopy (i.e., without electronic versions) > >> > >> This is because the last two requirements directly contradict, unless > >> you're willing to add extra restrictions as a way to bridge the two > >> (e.g., you must provide an electronic version on a web site), which > >> would violate the DFSG. I'm eager to be proven wrong here, but I just > >> don't think it can be done. The closest you can come, I think, is to > >> require that electronic versions accompany hardcopy, but with an > >> exception for copies under some number (e.g., 100). Do d-l people agree > >> that such a license could be DFSG free? > > > > If it's free without the exception then it's free with it; the > > exception does not make it free. Please don't pick an arbitrary number > > though; my class at university had about 110 people in it, so a limit > > of 100 would be problematic. Say "for non-commercial use" or something > > - that should cover all the cases. > > Certainly throwing in the exception wouldn't make it non free. But what > about making it explicit in the license text that "source" doesn't mean > a paper copy? > > Hrm. Punch cards come to mind. Can't say it should be computer > readable -- what about OCR? I don't know how this would properly be > worded. A stack of paper is not the preferred form for modification. Leave the rest for the courts to worry about; trying to specify it can only lead to misery and pain. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature