* Jeremy Hankins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-03-01 09:18:43 -0500]: > Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > On Sun, Feb 29, 2004 at 12:47:56AM -0500, Jeremy Hankins wrote: > > >> Hrm. Punch cards come to mind. Can't say it should be computer > >> readable -- what about OCR? I don't know how this would properly be > >> worded. > > > > A stack of paper is not the preferred form for modification. Leave the > > rest for the courts to worry about; trying to specify it can only lead > > to misery and pain. > > Yeah, I think you're right. I take back what I said about making that > explicit in the license text.
> So it seems that GPL + exception for small-scale, non-commercial > versions is probably the best bet, along with explanatory text regarding > what source means, is the best bet. > > Jeremy Hankins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333 9E10 D212 B5ED 37D0 0A03 My understanding of how this discussion developed is that a GPL license + a clause about allowing small non-commercial _paper_ printing runs to not have to provide sources, applied to software documentation would be DFSG-free and is generally recommended for documentation in Debian. On the other had OPLv1.0 cannot be made DFSG-free and should not be bothered with, unless the goal of the upstream _is_ to stay non-free (i.e. restricting commercial _paper_ printing to require their written permission) until they publish a book as it is in this case. So, they should be left alone until they are ready for GPL. Are my assessments correct? Thank you! Alex.
