Peter Kupfer wrote: > I am assuming that just saying the source is available at XXX isn't good > enough. Is that correct.
Correct. You have two options: 1) Provide the sources. 2) Provide a written offer, valid for at least 3 years, to ship the sources to any third party that asks for them for a charge no greater than what it costs you to do this. Not only that, but the sources must match exactly the non-editable file you gave them 3 years ago. > Are there other drawbacks to the GPL that are more complex. Yes or no > will be fine unless they are easily explained. I'm confident this is it, pretty much. GNU has a FAQ entry explaining why they don't think you should use the GPL for manuals: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#WhyNotGPLForManuals And the reason they list is what I just told you. Cheers, -- Daniel Carrera | I don't want it perfect, Join OOoAuthors today! | I want it Tuesday. http://oooauthors.org |
