* Brian T. Sniffen ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > The MIT/X11 license and the GPL would both work, depending on whether > you want a copyleft. The MIT license can probably be used just by > itself. To use the GPL, though, you should probably put in a section > which explains how your document can be viewed as software, along the > lines of: > > This section is for clarification only. It is intended to expand > on the wishes of the author, but should not be interpreted to > change the license or copyright status of the work. The author > intends that the LaTeX2e source for this document be treated as > the "preferred form for modification", which is to say the "Source > Code". All other formats -- even open, transparent formats such > as plain text or HTML -- are hard for the author to use in > integrating changes to his copy of the document, and so should be > considered "Object Code". Again, this isn't a binding statement, > and any distribution in a preferred form for modification, such as > plain text or clean HTML, is acceptable as "Source Code" under the > license. Distribution in a closed, hard to modify format such as > PDF, generated HTML or PostScript, or a Microsoft Word document > should always be treated as "Object Code".
perhaps change 'clean HTML' to 'w3c valid HTML', with a link to w3c.org's validation site? and possibly avoid referring directly to MSWord as well - a reference to 'binary, closed file formats' would probably do the same job. iain -- wh33, y1p33 3tc. "If sharing a thing in no way diminishes it, it is not rightly owned if it is not shared." -St. Augustine
