Re: Is Open Publication License v1.0 compatible?
Andrew Suffield <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> On Sun, Feb 29, 2004 at 12:47:56AM -0500, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
>> 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
> 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.
Yeah, I think you're right. I take back what I said about making that
explicit in the license text.
So it seems that GPL + exception for small-scale, non-commercial
versions is probably the best bet, along with explanatory text regarding
what source means, is the best bet.
Jeremy Hankins <email@example.com>
PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333 9E10 D212 B5ED 37D0 0A03