Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Sat, Feb 28, 2004 at 04:52:34PM -0500, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
>> Traditionally d-l has suggested to folks with this problem that they >> use the GPL with explicit explanatory text explaining what they take >> "preferred form for modification" (i.e., source) to mean for their >> work (e.g., an electronic version in the original format, or >> something like it). That should provide the same protections as the >> GPL, though generally it amounts to mandating some form of electronic >> distribution along with printed forms, which can have practical >> problems. > > Commercial printings can just make a written offer to provide the > source on demand, which is then satisfied by sticking it on a website > and referencing the site from the text. Yes. But I can imagine situations where that would mean that, for example, a class couldn't distribute a hardcopy version because they don't have a server to stick it up on. >> But as for the practical problem of distributing hardcopy versions, I >> simply don't see a way to satisfy the criteria: >> >> - DFSG free >> - copyleft (i.e., can't take it proprietary) >> - easy to distribute hardcopy (i.e., without electronic versions) >> >> This is because the last two requirements directly contradict, unless >> you're willing to add extra restrictions as a way to bridge the two >> (e.g., you must provide an electronic version on a web site), which >> would violate the DFSG. I'm eager to be proven wrong here, but I just >> don't think it can be done. The closest you can come, I think, is to >> require that electronic versions accompany hardcopy, but with an >> exception for copies under some number (e.g., 100). Do d-l people agree >> that such a license could be DFSG free? > > If it's free without the exception then it's free with it; the > exception does not make it free. Please don't pick an arbitrary number > though; my class at university had about 110 people in it, so a limit > of 100 would be problematic. Say "for non-commercial use" or something > - that should cover all the cases. Certainly throwing in the exception wouldn't make it non free. But what about making it explicit in the license text that "source" doesn't mean a paper copy? 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. -- Jeremy Hankins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333 9E10 D212 B5ED 37D0 0A03