> Basically, you can't make your own private copies (that's using > technological measures to restrict the reading of the copies you > make),
Is there any reasonable case restricted by this? (It's also not obvious for me if copyright restricts this.) > it's GPL-incompatible when the FSF demands GPL-compatibility > for every license (although with good reason) They don't, they use and recommend GPL-incompatible software like TeX. I agree that it's bad and discourages useful techniques like literate programming or API documentation generated from source. > and you have to print > an additional nine-page document whenever you print the document. Not a problem for the typical use in long manuals, GNU recommends other licenses for short works. > Moreover, it's hardly used at all. CC-BY-SA has become the default > license for textual works and documentation, as stated in section 8 > of this famous essay, although the FSF states "please don't use > it...for documentation". They're fighting a lost cause, and by > allowing limited relicensing in GFDL 1.3, I think they're admitting > that. This doesn't affect the use for GNU software manuals. > I'm posting here mainly because I wanted to solve the problem of > printing. Attached you'll find a PDF of the GFDL that takes up only > two pages. Print it every time you print material from this site, or > you're violating the GFDL. (If we used CC-BY-SA that wouldn't be a > problem, because those letters would be enough.) There are also GPL-compatible solutions for new works: copyleft-next can be used for printed works (e.g. can include URLs of the license and source instead of their text), some works use CC-BY-SA, GPL and FDL triple licensing (which allows publishing modified versions without source).
pgpYUk7dEjFzC.pgp
Description: PGP signature
