Re: [no subject]
On 11/4/05, Nathanael Nerode <email@example.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.
This space for rent. Enquire within. Terms and conditions apply. See
store for details.
Get free domains - http://www.ezyrewards.com/?id=23484