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

Re: GPL-compatible, copyleft documentation license

* Branden Robinson:

>   In the copyright holder's understanding, re-imposition of the
>   requirements of sections 2a and and 2c by those creating a derivative
>   work is not allowed, since those restrictions never attached to this
>   work; see section 6. This work can be combined with another work licensed
>   under the GNU General Public License, version 2, but any section 2a and
>   2c restrictions on the resulting work would only attach only due to the
>   copyright license on the work(s) with which this work is combined and for
>   which those restrictions are in force.

Isn't this at least a bit self-contradicting?  Why produce such a mess
in the first place?

Your license doesn't give me permission to publicly perform the work,
or to broadcast it.  It doesn't deal with moral rights at all (which
are quite important in some jurisdictions when it comes to
non-programs).  It doesn't special-case distribution of printed
copies, which means that the GPL provisions apply.  These provisions
pretty much rule out small-scaleprinting and redistribution because of
the "valid for at least three years" rule.  However, the license does
clarify what constitutes source code, but this might also be a further
restriction in the GPL sense, making the license incompatible with the

All in all, I don't think this is a particularly good license for
documentation, it's just yet another GPL variant.

Reply to: