On Dec 29, 2009, at 9:24 PM, Jason Grout wrote: > William Stein wrote: > >>> The major difference I see between GFDL and CC-by-sa is that CC-by- >>> sa >>> does not have the requirement that the source be distributed with >>> the >>> work. >> >> The statement you just made above about GFDL is false. The relevant >> statement in the GFDL is: "If you publish or distribute Opaque copies >> of the Document numbering more than 100, you must either include a >> machine-readable Transparent copy along with each Opaque copy, or >> state in or with each Opaque copy a computer-network location from >> which the general network-using public has access to download using >> public-standard network protocols a complete Transparent copy of the >> Document, free of added material." It is important to read the >> definitions in order to understand the previous sentence -- see >> http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html > > > Yes, that's the text in the GFDL license I was referring to. I > apologize if I over-generalized to the point of not being correct. I > was hoping to succinctly capture one of the big philosophical > differences between the two licenses. By "source" for a book, I > meant a > latex document, which is something that is specifically given as an > example of a "Transparent Copy". > > So it still seems that GFDL has some sort of requirement about > distributing a "Transparent copy" (in my case, a latex file; again, > for > details, see the the actual license). To my understanding, CC-by-sa > has > no such requirement to deliver a "Transparent copy", so, if I > understand > things correctly, I am perfectly legal in extensively modifying a > CC-by-sa book (from the latex file obtained under the CC-by-sa > license) > and then only distributing the resulting pdf file, licensed under > CC-by-sa. That's why I wish Creative Commons had an option to have > some > sort of requirement for a "Transparent Copy" distribution, like GFDL, > making something like a CC-by-sa-src license.
I never really thought about this distinction--I wish there was something like CC-by-sa-src as well. Source doesn't make as much sense for a photo, but for something like a LaTeX document or a vector graphic it is very valuable--almost an essential part of the "share alike" idea. That's a strong argument for the GFDL. Even then, most stuff doesn't fall into the 100+ pages category, and the GFDL is a lot harder (for me) to be sure I understand (The CC, even the legalese version, is much more readable.), and the GFDL requirements to contain the full license is more draconian. Interesting question--now that wikipedia is CC-by-sa, can I take the full text, make some improvements, and satisfy the license by selling PDFs only? Would certainly seem to violate the spirit of the license. BTW, I don't think there's any conflict issues with the GPL of any code involved--they don't link to each other. - Robert -- To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URL: http://www.sagemath.org
