[oclug] GPL on non-code

[Brenda J. Butler]

On Mon, Apr 11, 2005 at 04:40:28PM -0400, Adrian Irving-Beer wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 11, 2005 at 07:33:28AM -0500, Stephen M. Webb wrote:
> 
> > > Can the GPL apply in general to binary pictures?  Can it apply
> > > when the software used is non-GPL-compatible?  If not, can the
> > > LGPL be used there?  GFDL?
> >
> > I think that's pretty much what the GFDL was intended for.
> > <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/licenses.html#FDL>
> 
> Great; sounds like I'll use that when release time comes.

I don't think Debian considers GFDL as free, unfortunately,
due to the invariant section part.

When I was making a presentation recently, someone suggested that
the BSD license is the only one that allowed people to legally
pass the pdf or ps file without the source file among themselves.
Plus it has the extra bonus of being short enough to fit on
one slide and still be legible (if you're the presenter standing
at the front of the room, or if you print it out).

So that was interesting.  I ended up using it, but have not
settled on that for the future.  I'd prefer something that
restricts people to build free things out of my free things,
but I don't want them to be doing something illegal by
handing each other a ps or pdf.  And the shorter the license
is, the more likely people will read/follow it...

I last heard that Debian is "working with" Creative Copyright
to see which versions/clauses are DFSG-compliant.

> > Did you know graphvis is now available in a Free version?  You can
> > now use it to generate images without fear of the Free Thought
> > Police swooping down.
> 
> Interesting.  My Debian package has indeed moved out of non-free, and
> I didn't even notice.  There's a weight off my shoulders. ;)

Have you got the vrms package?    :-)

cheerio,
bjb