Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Scripsit MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > It is a shame that debian-legal seems to be the largest visible group > > getting indigestion from this problem. The argument that we should aid > > unfree book producers seems as reasonable as the argument that we should > > offer concessions to unfree software producers: not at all. > > The funny thing is that none, or only a tiny portion of, the > non-free aspects of the GFDL would be of any "aid" to hardcopy > publishers. > > Which publisher would actively prefer to publish a book with [...]
Cutting out a bunch of very valid arguments (Invariant sections, front cover text, etc) > Exclude from "publisher" in all these cases a hypothetical zealous > author who is his own publisher and wants to make it inconvenient > for other people to publish hardcopies that compete with his own - he > does not need a "free" license at all to do so. I think that may be the point of the license. It's not to make it easy for a publisher to print and sell a free book written by a third party. Indeed, the X license would be better for them in that case. It's to make it palatable for a publisher to finance the writing of a new book (under a somewhat free license) that other publishers can't easily rip off. But I think the concessions made for this make it non-free. Peter
