Re: GPL as a license for documentation: What about derived works?
MJ Ray <email@example.com> schrieb:
> =?iso-8859-1?q?Frank_K=FCster?= <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>> Would it be possible to create something like a reduced form of the GPL,
>> with "program" replaced by "text", "object code" by "typeset form", and
>> with all the executable-specific cruft rippeed off (or replaced)?
> It would be possible (see GPL FAQ cited previously), but I think it's
> superfluous because the GPL's definition of Program is flexible enough
> to include documents.
It might be flexible enough from a legal point of view. But then, it
seems the minds of authors aren't always flexible enough. Perhaps I
would have to help them bend and stretch...
> It's undesirable because GPL-doc would be
> incompatible with GPL unless you make specific provision for a LGPL-style
For real standalone documentation, I don't know wether this would be a
problem in practice. Hm. I should read about compatibility of GPL'ed
code with BSD or artistic licensed code.
Inst. f. Biochemie der Univ. Zürich