Subject: Re: For Approval: MN Open Documentation License 1.0
From: Michal Nazarewicz <mina86@tlen.pl>
Date: Sat, 18 Dec 2004 09:10:06 +0100

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Saturday 18 of December 2004 00:08, John Cowan wrote:
> The main problem with using the GPL for documentation is that the
> requirement to deliver source code in 3a is unreasonable when applied to
> printed books, [...] 3b isn't much better [...] If you want to use the
> GPL for documentation, at the very least include
> a waiver of the source-code requirement for printed copies. 

The MN ODL uses pretty much the same source code policy. Now, however, I 
see that it might by troublesome. The question arises: What policy would 
be OK. I wouldn't like to waive the source-code requirement for printed 
copies since, I believe that, everyone should have access to the source 
code. Maybe I should use the FDL's way:

> If you publish or distribute Opaque copies of the Document numbering more
> than 100, you must either include a machine-readable Transparent copy 
> along with each Opaque copy, or state in or with each Opaque copy a
> computer-network location from which the general network-using public has
> access to download using public-standard network protocols a complete
> Transparent copy of the Document, free of added material.

- -- 
Best regards,                                          _     _
.o. | Liege of Serenly Enlightened Majesty           o' \,=./ `o
..o | of Computer Science,  Michal "MINA" Nazarewicz    (o o)
ooo +--<mina86@tlen.pl>--<jid:mina86@jabber.org>----ooO--(_)--Ooo--
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFBw+XjUyzLALfG3x4RArTpAKCVH8k4aeIXTtTGLfOIkZY0MGIvJgCfc+Dj
DUBPZt2GZTbFx/sQ+G54Nmw=
=tc9s
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----