On Thu, Sep 06, 2012 at 05:45:00PM -0400, John Cowan wrote: > Rick Moen scripsit: > > > Years ago, I reminded readers on this mailing list that possibly useful > > reciprocal licences for non-software use by people disliking GFDL > > include GPLv2, and that FSF even published a piece explaining the > > advantages before they fell in love with GFDL: > > The difficulty is that text often winds up in printed books, and then > you either have to distribute a CD with the book containing the editable > source, or be prepared to issue such CDs for no more than the cost of > distributing them. Both are expensive and awkward activities, and > neither is well-supported by the printed-book sales channels that exist.
That assumes that the printed text is not "source code" in the sense meant in sections 1 and 2 of GPLv2 but is instead "object code or executable form" (section 3). I believe the better interpretation of GPLv2 is that text in a printed book is "source code ... in any medium" (the particular medium being printed text); thus you never reach section 3. - RF _______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss