On Wed, Jun 12, 2002 at 10:41:04AM -0700, Ben Pfaff wrote: > Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > My initial strategy is going to be to start from a simple base, like the > > OPL without its optional clauses, and add concepts from the GNU GPL, and > > the published GNU FDL draft. My main goals are: > [...] > > * to appeal to people who are already using the OPL or GNU FDL > > (especially the latter) > > Isn't it mostly the FSF that's using the GNU FDL right now? I > think it's going to be difficult to talk the FSF into adopting > someone else's license.
I've used the FDL before now for documentation I've written. I was none too happy with its unnecessary complexities, but it was the best available; I'd welcome a simpler and more generally appropriate license. My objectives are simple: free, copyleft distribution, but one which permits practical hardcopy distribution (not entirely sure what "practical" means here); the GPL itself fails on the last point. Merely using the GPL with a chaser of "Also, you can print this out and distribute it" would seem to weaken the copyleft nature more than I would like. Suggestions for solutions to this problem are welcome. Enforcing invariant sections, or deriving payment from the work, are not amongst my goals, unlike the FDL. Plus, I'd like to be able to present people who are currently using the GPL for documentation with an alternative.[0] [0] "Hi, your current license means I can't print out the documentation and give people copies easily, consider this one" -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | Dept. of Computing, `. `' | Imperial College, `- -><- | London, UK
pgpf5ZNoJGatv.pgp
Description: PGP signature
