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

Re: Request for suggestions of DFSG-free documentation licenses

Nathanael Nerode <neroden@fastmail.fm> writes:
> The GPL contains some clauses which are somewhat irritating for
> *printed* manuals *only*.  Debian does not think that this is a
> problem, as Debian does not distribute printed manuals (the user can
> always print them himself).

Agreed.  Similarly, if you distribute physical hardware containing GPL
code, you must obey the same requirements (to provide source on a
CDROM, etc, or give a written offer to provide source on a CDROM etc).
And that's okay but, as you say, not ideal.

So I prefer the GPLv3 drafts (in sec. 6) because they allow Internet
distribution of the source, even when the object code or executable is
distributed in a physical medium (e.g. a printed manual or a router).


`If we are fortunate, Republicans will complete their self-destruction
 before they extinguish the Constitution and destroy America.' 
   --Paul Roberts, former assistant Treasury Secretary under Reagan

Reply to: