[tex-live] Re: ConTeXt documentation in "commercial" products

[Frank Küster]

Hans Hagen <pragma at wxs.nl> wrote:

>>>>You are aware that the Creative Commons Deed is just a wrapper around
>>>>the "real" GPL?  You didn't include it in mreadme.pdf, but on the
>>>>website (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/GPL/2.0/) it says:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>a wrapper indeed, and if users want to rad the full thing, they can
>>>use their browser; i'm not going to add redundant code (read n pages
>>>of licence) to manuals and source code
>>>
>>>
>>
>>There's not even a link to the "full thing", so I doubt that any judge
>>would accept that the GPL applies.
>>
>>
> copied from the pdf at the web site:
>
> We’re not going to fill n pages with legal stuff, so if you want to
> know more, you have
> to consult the web for the legalities mentioned. Here are a few
> starting points:
>
> http://creativecommons.org/licenses/GPL/2.0/
> http://creativecommons.org/licenses/GPL/2.0/legalcode
> http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/
> http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/legalcode
>
> to me this is as good as a reference to some article in a law or whatever

Oh, yes - I didn't spot these since I expected the license links at the
bottom of the "Deed" as it is on Creative Common's web site;  I guess
it's okay that way.

> hm, if it means that someone always has to include the whole lot

I'm not sure.

> I trust you guys to include a copy of the GPL someplace in the zips or
> media.

That would at least save you from the question which version was
intended, in case CC switches to GPL v 3

Regards, Frank
-- 
Frank Küster
Single Molecule Spectroscopy, Protein Folding @ Inst. f. Biochemie, Univ. Zürich
Debian Developer (teTeX)