Re: Clarifying non-free parts of the GNU FDL

[MJ Ray <mjr@dsl.pipex.com>]

On 2004-09-29 00:23:01 +0100 Joe Buck <Joe.Buck@synopsys.COM> wrote:

> Side issue #3: claims that we should tell people to use the GPL for
> documentation.  That's a bad idea, as if I sell my GPL-covered printed
> book to a friend, and that book was produced from, say, DocBook SGML, 
> I
> have to either give the friend the SGML source code, or else give him 
> a
> written offer, good for three years, to give him the source code 
> later.

FDL-covered works distribute a source-like version or an offer, 
reasonably prudent for a year (lawyerbomb!), of a source-like download 
later IIRC. This is only obligatory if you distribute 100, but would 
anyone want to hinder a friend?

If you don't want to share source, maybe you want to use an 
MIT/X11-style licence?

--
MJR/slef    My Opinion Only and not of any group I know
 Creative copyleft computing - http://www.ttllp.co.uk/
LinuxExpo.org.uk village 6+7 Oct http://www.affs.org.uk