Valdis(_dot_)Kletnieks(_at_)vt(_dot_)edu 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...