[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> May I know, how close to a "contribution to the public"; the GNU Free
>> Documentation License is? See also
>> http://gnux.vlsm.org/copyleft/fdl.txt
> Not very.
>From the preamble:
"The purpose of this License is to make a manual, textbook, or
other written document "free" in the sense of freedom: to assure
everyone the effective freedom to copy and redistribute it, with or
without modifying it, either commercially or noncommercially.
Secondarily, this License preserves for the author and publisher
a way to get credit for their work, while not being considered
responsible for modifications made by others."
I have no problem with that. However; since I am not a lawyer, I am
just wondering if there are hidden catches that I am not aware of.
> At least it's not as viral as the GPL, and they don't
> require you (in section 3) to *personally* distribute sources for
> 3 years if you ship binaries of GPL programs (which irked me no end
> when building installable packages for AIX - even though I made *no*
> source changes, I asked (and was told) that just pointing at ftp.gnu.org
> for the source wasn't acceptable). You only need take "prudent steps"
> for one year to ensure the place you point people stays there.
Section 3 of GPL http://gnux.vlsm.org/copyleft/gpl.txt has three
options, "a" (accompany with source code) , "b" (three years commitment
to distribute), and "c" (providing pointers). So, what is the problem
to choose one of them?
regards,
--
Rahmat M. Samik-Ibrahim - VLSM-TJT - http://rms46.vlsm.org
--- The Kappa likes getting cucumber --- Budum... Budum...
