GPL+ for docs (Was: Is Open Publication License v1.0 compatible?)
* Jeremy Hankins <email@example.com> [2004-03-01 09:18:43 -0500]:
> 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
> >> 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.
> 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
My understanding of how this discussion developed is that a GPL license
+ a clause about allowing small non-commercial _paper_ printing runs to
not have to provide sources, applied to software documentation would be
DFSG-free and is generally recommended for documentation in Debian.
On the other had OPLv1.0 cannot be made DFSG-free and should not be
bothered with, unless the goal of the upstream _is_ to stay non-free
(i.e. restricting commercial _paper_ printing to require their written
permission) until they publish a book as it is in this case. So, they
should be left alone until they are ready for GPL.
Are my assessments correct?