Re: [no subject]
On 11/4/05, Nathanael Nerode <neroden@twcny.rr.com> wrote:
> 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
> your choice.
Well actually no it doesn't solve the problem as you have to comply
with both licenses when dual-licensing. But for most documents, source
code is pretty easy to define: images, your XCF or PSD source (if you
happen to use those formats), sound, your editor's project file, text,
your word processor or TeX source.
Andrew Donnellan
--
This space for rent. Enquire within. Terms and conditions apply. See
store for details.
Get free domains - http://www.ezyrewards.com/?id=23484
Reply to: