On 11/4/05, Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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. Andrew Donnellan -- This space for rent. Enquire within. Terms and conditions apply. See store for details. Get free domains - http://www.ezyrewards.com/?id=23484
