[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: [no subject]

Andrew Donnellan wrote:

On 11/4/05, Nathanael Nerode <neroden@twcny.rr.com> wrote:
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.

Then you couldn't dual-license two GPL-derivatives; their two 'no further restrictions' requirements would prevent you distributing the work at all. As I understand it, a dual-licensed work contains two conditional grants of rights; fulfilling the conditions for one conditional grant grants all the rights you need. The other conditional grant can't take your rights away, even if you don't fulfil its conditions.

I'd say that dual-licensing would solve this problem, as long as you're content with only passing on the work licensed according to the one that doesn't object to it being in dead-tree format.

(Tangentially, could someone please clarify this: to pass on the work dual-licensed, do you need to comply with both licenses, or does the copyright statement attached to the work that you've legitimately distributed under one of the licenses allow your recipient to choose one or the other just like you could? I'm thinking the latter, but I may be wrong.)

In any case, could the problem with not providing source be solved by exercising GPL 3b? Just stick a note in the copyright that the source code is available. IMO, this is exactly what the GPL is supposed to be doing: preserving the freedom to modify. This would be curtailed if to modify a book you first had to scan and OCR it.

Lewis Jardine

Reply to: