Florian Weimer wrote: > * Josh Triplett: > >> Agreed. "In the text" could imply "right next to where you differ from >> the standard", which would probably be unreasonable enough to be >> non-free. Without the "in the text", modifiers could simply add a >> blanket notice somewhere in the distributed work saying "this has been >> changed and may not match the POSIX standard", which is a reasonable >> requirement. > > They probably want to avoid that someone puts the markers into an > nroff comment. > > (We could actually add the markers and provide a patched groff to hide > them again.) > >> One other issue: does "and the nroff source is included" mean that if I >> want to hand someone a printed copy of a manual page, I have to either >> print the nroff source or supply it on an attached disk? This seems >> onerous for physical distribution.
Well, if you use the usual intepretation, you only have to *offer* someone the attached disk; if they decline it, you don't have to force it on them. Also, once you print an individual copy, first sale doctrine probably applies (at least in the US) and you can do whatever the heck you want with it (except copying it again). > This is what happens if you apply the GPL to documentation, and it > seems to be considered acceptable. > -- There are none so blind as those who will not see.
