Frank Küster wrote: > I hope I have understood most of the things you wrote, and it seems > clearer to me now what you can do, and what you can't do, by releasing a > text under GPL. > > But still there's a lot of cruft in it that might be just confusing for > an author who considers GPL for his text, or even add confusion to a > possible lawsuit. > > Would it be possible to create something like a reduced form of the GPL, > with "program" replaced by "text", "object code" by "typeset form", and > with all the executable-specific cruft rippeed off (or replaced)?
You could (if you removed the GPL preamble as required by the FSF), but the resulting license is very likely to be incompatible with the GPL. I strongly recommend just using the standard GPL. If you really feel that such clarifications are necessary, you could add a (non-binding) clarification stating that "program" corresponds to "text" and "object code" corresponds to "typeset form", and add an exception to any clauses you don't care about. However, I don't think that's a good idea, and I don't think people will be confused by a GPLed document. - Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
