* Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS: > Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > >> * Branden Robinson: >> >> > In the copyright holder's understanding, re-imposition of the >> > requirements of sections 2a and and 2c by those creating a derivative >> > work is not allowed, since those restrictions never attached to this >> > work; see section 6. This work can be combined with another work licensed >> > under the GNU General Public License, version 2, but any section 2a and >> > 2c restrictions on the resulting work would only attach only due to the >> > copyright license on the work(s) with which this work is combined and for >> > which those restrictions are in force. >> >> Isn't this at least a bit self-contradicting? Why produce such a mess >> in the first place? > > To me it seems potentially useful to release licensees from those > requirements.
I agree, but at the same time, Branden explicitly forbids to re-introduce these requirements, creating the GPL compatibility issue. > As I understand it moral rights are not portable in the way that > copyright is, so it might not even be possible to deal with moral > rights without hiring a huge international team of lawyers and > producing a multilingual licence the size of a small book. Creative Commons is doing this already, so why not use their efforts? >> It doesn't special-case distribution of printed >> copies, which means that the GPL provisions apply. These provisions >> pretty much rule out small-scaleprinting and redistribution because of >> the "valid for at least three years" rule. > > I don't think that's a huge problem in practice. If you tell the > people to whom you give the hard copy that they must download the > source within the next 48 hours, then that probably counts as giving > them the source. This is not GPL-compatible, and not comptible with Branden's license. > If you're selling the hard copies then you can probably afford to > include a CD. I don't think there are affordable self-publishing deals that also include CD production, but I could be wrong.