Jeff Licquia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, 2002-06-14 at 13:40, Walter Landry wrote: > > When the professor got the source to the book, did she not read the > > license? Was the professor not giving access to the source of the > > document? It's not that hard to make an announcement at the beginning > > of class offering the course to anyone who wants it. Especially for > > such a large class. I'm sure a number of laptop-happy students would > > even take her up on it. I just don't see the problem here, unless the > > professor just thinks, "Oooh, free stuff!" People think that about > > GPL stuff all the time, and they rightfully get slapped down. What is > > the problem here? > > If there isn't a problem with requiring that the professor distribute > the source, then there isn't a problem whether the professor distributes > one copy or one thousand. Therefore, the whole volume exemption is > unnecessary.
When I give out only a few copies, requiring source distribution adds significant overhead to the transaction. If I give out lots of copies, source distribution is an insignificant overhead. There is a difference. > For an example of an alternative to arbitrary limits, see the example > clause I posted in another message in this thread. Do you mean this? > - A statement is provided in the same form as the rest of the document > that describes how the Source for this document may be retrieved at no > charge. This should probably be "a charge no more than the cost of physically performing source distribution" rather than "no charge". I would also keep the noncommercial distribution stipulation from the GPL. I worry a little about new loopholes, but I don't think that they're serious. Now that I consider it, this kind of statement would be fine for me. Regards, Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
