On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 20:00:13 -0400, Michael Olson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#TOCWhyNotGPLForManuals Thanks. This is more or less what I was looking for. > In particular, "[T]he GFDL has clauses that help publishers of free > manuals make a profit from selling copies--cover texts, for instance." > It is both an issue of burden and one of ensuring that certain unfair > (to the publisher) practices do not happen. Even if you might not > think that having a written offer to provide source code is a burden, > obviously some publishers do think so -- it could even be viewed as a > burden on those who try to get a book published, if a publisher balks > at providing source code on CD or via a written offer. OK, I can accept this. Personally, I don't see the source code requirement and lack of cover texts as a huge problem for publishers that it would prevent me from using the GPL for my own manuals (or to dual-license). I'm still not completely convinced that the FSF shouldn't dual-license (e.g. dual-licensing would allow forks to copy information between the documentation and the code in some semi-reasonable way -- although doing so would prevent the manual from being further distributed under the GFDL, it would at least make copying possible). But despite my disagreement, I guess that if publishers really do see the source code requirement as a problem, and if the FSF wants to ensure that they won't be burdened by it when someone makes a fork, then it is the FSF's prerogative as copyright holder to do so. -- Hubert Chan - email & Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://www.uhoreg.ca/ PGP/GnuPG key: 1024D/124B61FA (Key available at wwwkeys.pgp.net) Fingerprint: 96C5 012F 5F74 A5F7 1FF7 5291 AF29 C719 124B 61FA -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
