Hartmut Holzgraefe wrote:
>
> Egon Schmid wrote:
> > To make the story short, it isn't allowed to earn money with other
> > peoples work.
>
> no, it is not allowed if the creator didn't give you
> permission to do so, which the e.g. GPL definetly does
> as long as you stick by the rules
Do you have something against, to change the license?
> - do not change the copyright
Why?
> - provide sources on demand (and without putting additional
> fees on this other then handling/shipping) to everyone who
> has your compiled version, has not violated the license
> himself and asks for it
I don't see that this would happens.
> - do not put limitations on further distribution of
> sources and binaries
There is no clear distinction between sources and binaries whith the
documentation.
> not a single word about not making money from it in the GPL
> besides that you must not make *additional* money from giving
> the sources to whoever rightfully demands to get them
I was asking about the change from GPL to OPL. This have to do mainly
with the copyright.
> the GFDL (GNU Free Documentation License) you suggested yourself
> is based on the very same idea, but is a better fit for documentation
> than the GPL which concentrates on 'source' and 'binary' and
> has some other extensions required by laws in the publishing
> area which do not apply to sourcecode
How does that relate to the (GNU)OPL?
> please have a look at the preamble of the GFDL, it clearly says:
>
> 0. PREAMBLE
>
> The purpose of this License is to make a manual, textbook, or other
> written document "free" in the sense of freedom: to assure everyone
> the effective freedom to copy and redistribute it, with or without
> modifying it, either commercially or noncommercially. [...]
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> http://www.fsf.org/licenses/fdl.html
>
> (german translation under
> http://nautix.sourceforge.net/docs/fdl.de.html)
I haven't it read yet, but it doesn't sounds like a GNU OPL. The text
you have cited is probably incomplete.
-Egon
