On Tue, Oct 18, 2005 at 12:23:20AM +0200, Diego Iastrubni wrote: > ביום שלישי, 18 באוקטובר 2005, 00:05, נכתב על ידי Ira Abramov: > > sorry for barging in, but what's wrong with the GPL itself? > GPL is for code, not documentation. > > Imagine for example a situation in which you distribute some documentation > and > want people to print it and charge for it (commercial distribution), however > you are publishing the documentation in PDF format. > > With GPL you also need to provide the source (latex, openoffice, doc, html > whatever), but this is not the issue here. The most important thing in > documentation is the content, not the media.
So you should grant anybody who bought from you the PDF or hard-copy the option to get the "sources". There are also other types of clients: suppose I want to distribute your documents or dictionary as part of my distribution. Naturally I would like to be able to fix mistake and to update it. I may also want to be able to index it, or present it in a different format (HTML? text?). As you said, the content is the most important thing, and I don't want to be limited by the limitations of a certain viewer. But all the above assumes I have been granted quite a few freedoms. -- Tzafrir Cohen | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | VIM is http://tzafrir.org.il | | a Mutt's [EMAIL PROTECTED] | | best ICQ# 16849755 | | friend --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
