Re: Free Art License
On Thu, Sep 30, 2004 at 08:24:46PM -0500, Joe Wreschnig wrote:
> How do you feel about specifying what is *not* the preferred form of
> modification ("object code", in GPL parlance)?
It's likely to cause problems, too.
> I've a number of documents that say "References to "object code" and
> "executables" in the GNU GPL are to be interpreted as the output of any
> document formatting or typesetting system, including intermediate and
> printed output." Some of them I've written, but I borrowed the wording
> from something else (I suspect in Debian), and I've encouraged people to
> use this phrasing many times since.
What if I take a man page, output it as plain text, and use that as source,
modifying it, maintaining it, etc. and discarding the original manpage? The
GPL lets me do that; this "interpretation" does not.
This "interpretation" doesn't follow from the GPL (which makes me cringe,
remembering the times where people have tried to change the meaning of
licenses by "interpretating" them).
It's non-free, in my opinion, since it prohibits the the above.
--
Glenn Maynard
Reply to: