Frank Kuester wrote: >Has it been >discussed, and if yes to what end, whether a printed version (of a >GPL'ed document) would be "object code" as treated in section 3, <snip> >On the one hand, treating printed copies of the work just the same as >any digital "compiled" version sounds logical and in the intent of the >license.
Well, the draft for GPL v3 says: >"Object code" means any non-source version of a work. Everyone seems to like this. So in GPL v3 it will be very clear that a printed copy is "object code". Unless you have a perverse copyright holder, I would assume that a printed copy qualifies as "object code". The usual complaint is different: people want to be able to distribute printed copies without supplying source. This can be achieved with GPL+extra permissions. Indeed, an author can, to a certain extent, restrict commercial trade of the printed version this way. A publisher can publish a printed version under the GPL, but they have to tuck a CD with the complete source code for the book into every copy of the book. I would say that that would have to include all the typefaces used in the book, which would have to be under GPL-compatible licenses; and the cover art, likewise; and even the specifications for reproducing the binding. If they don't want to do that (and with the current behavior of publishers, I bet most won't want to), they need to get separate permission from the author. I would recommend that authors who wish to supply free documentation but wish to effectively restrict commercial trade in printed copies should follow this interpretation. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]