| Message 00916 | [Homepage] | [Navigation] | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Thread: oxenT00811 Message: 10/33 L8 | [In index] | ||
| [First in Thread] | [Last in Thread] | [Date Next] | [Date Prev] |
| [Next in Thread] | [Prev in Thread] | [Next Thread] | [Prev Thread] |
MJ Ray wrote:
Benja Fallenstein <b.fallenstein gmx.de> wrote:I do see the logic in it; I'm not impressed by them allowing either option in the first place, though.Me neither. I normally suggest using plain GPL or the DSL for copyleft books. http://www.dsl.org/copyleft/dsl.txt Can anyone see a problem with that?
Incompatibility with the FDL, which quite some stuff is licensed under nowadays (including everything at opentheory.org); and for the GPL, determining what 'source code,' 'binaries' and maybe 'linking' is... I think using the GPL for non-code, *especially* non-technical works, may serve to frighten people away from taking the work and modifying it, since they don't understand how to apply the license conditions, and that's *not* good.
I do see DSL as a good option, though. If compatibility is seen as the lesser problem, definitely better than the FDL! (IMHO.)
-b. _______________________ http://www.oekonux.org/
| Thread: oxenT00811 Message: 10/33 L8 | [In index] | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Message 00916 | [Homepage] | [Navigation] | |