Re: [no subject]
Emmanuel Colbus wrote:
> My main concern about this was that such relicensed copies
> could have been considered not free, but undistributable, as the GPL is
supposed to apply to
> software, not to documents.
Any collection of bits is "software". The GPL works very well for any
collection of bits. Some people think that it, particularly the requirement
for provision of source code and the nature of permission to distribute in
forms other than source code, may have problems when
applied to dead-tree printed material. This is easily dealt with
by dual-licensing under the GPL and a printing-friendly license of
Nathanael Nerode <email@example.com>
This space intentionally left blank.