Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > The GPL doesn't say "the original author's preferred form for > > modifications", > > and that's not an error. > > It doesn't need to; this is implicit in the nature of copyright > law. The license comes from the copyright holder, so it's their > preference which counts.
The example I gave was that I write a document in plain text and someone else "typesets" with Word (if you want you can have them edit the text too). Then the Word document has two authors and two copyright holders, who may have different preferences. But my example wasn't that good. If I were to convert the Word document to plain text, edit it, typeset it with LaTeX and distribute the PostScript, the GPL would probably only require me to supply the LaTeX as source, as that would be the preferred form for modifying my version of the document, even if the other author would have preferred me to modify the Word document. A better example might be where I create a bilingual dictionary in plain text using a data file and a Perl script then give the plain text to someone who typesets it using Word and manually corrects a few glitches. Now, the source of the final PDF or hard copy could be the data file and the Perl script, for me, or the Word document, for the other person, as I can't use his Word, and he can't use my Perl. This is not an unrealistic example; it is exactly what happened with some of the material in question. I've come up with another slightly less minimal licence which arguably includes an implicit requirement to either supply source or tell people how to obtain source. It goes like this: # Public Licence: You may do anything you want with this work provided # that no additional legal or technical restrictions are placed on # derived works, you give reasonable help to anyone who wants to modify # your derived work, and you inform recipients of this licence. I have to decide by the end of this week how to licence the course material I referred to. At present it looks like I'm going to suggest dual-licensing it with GPLv2 and a one-sentence licence like the one above while asserting copyright on behalf of a registered charity and inviting people to assign copyright to that organisation. That combination ought to cover any eventuality. I'm still keen to receive suggestions about how to improve either of my one-sentence licences. Thanks for the suggestions already received. Edmund
